a 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY,  ECONOMICS  AND  PUBLIC  LAW 

EDITED  BY  THE  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
OF  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

Volume  LXXV]  [Number  1 

Whole  Number  177 


NEW  YORK  AS  AN  EIGHTEENTH 
CENTURY   MUNICIPALITY 

Prior  to  1731 


ARTHUR  EVERETT  PETERSON,  PH.D. 

Instructor  in  History,  Evander  Childs  High  School 
New  York  City 


COLUMBIA    UNIVERSITY 

LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  AGENTS, 

LONDON:  P.  S.  KING  &  SON,  LTD. 

1917 


COPYRIGHT,  1917 

BY 
ARTHUR  EVERETT  PETERSON 


(Co  t!j f  iHrniury  of 

WILL    SHARPAS 

CITY   CLERK    FOR    NEARLY    HALF    A   CENTURY 

ENDING    IN    1739 
WHOSE   CARE    IN    KKEPING    AND    PRESERVING 

THE    RECORDS   OF    THK    CITY 

MERITS   THE    WARMEST  TRIBUTE 

THIS    MONOGRAPH 

IS 
DEVOTEDLY    INSCRIBED 


UF  UAL-lfUlt 

SANTA  BARBARA 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

FAGI 

INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT 

City  of  New  Amsterdam  in  1653 i 

Military  and  commercial  aspects I 

Cosmopolitan  character  of  population 2 

Why  a  charter  had  been  sought 3 

New  Amsterdam  renamed  New  York,  1664 .  4 

No  sudden  change  in  municipal  government 4 

Administrative  sessions  of  mayor  and  aldermen  like  those 

of  burgomasters  and  schepens 4 

Jury  gradually  introduced  into  judicial  sessions 4 

Other  officials  with  their  changed  names 5 

New  Harlem          .    .                   .....  5 

Its  government  under  Director  General  Stuyvesant 5 

Its  government  as  changed  by  Governor  Nicolls 6 

The  Duke  of  York  and  the  municipality 6 

The  Duke's  liberal  attitude 6 

Tokens  of  good  will .    .  7 

Magistrates  in  office  permitted  to  present  nominations — 
double    the  number    to    be  chosen— at    the  time  of   the 

annual  election 7 

New  Orange             7 

Government  exclusively  Dutch 7 

Government  for  New  Harlem  and   the  region  "  on  this  side  of 

Haarlem  "  planned  by  burgomasters  and  schepens  ....  8 

Precedence  in  voting  in  court  of  burgomasters  and  schepens  .  8 

Governor's  deputy  as  a  presiding  officer  resented  by  magistrates  8 

City  of  New  York  again,  1674 9 

English  names  once  more  for  officials 9 

The  court  of  burgomasters  and  schepens  considered  in  relation 

to  the  English  court  of  mayor  and  aldermen 9 

Distinction  made  between  administrative  and  judicial  business  9 

Confusion  shown  in  the  records 11 

Origin  of  term  "  common  council  "       12 

The  Dongan  charter 13 

v 


VI 


CONTENTS 


A  surprising  grant  when  conditions  in  England  at  the  time  are 

considered                      .  13 

Conforming  to  the  Duke  of  York's  liberal  attitude  toward  New 

York.   ...                                13 

Many  provisions  virtually  in  effect  some  time  before  issuance  of 

charter 14 

The  common  council 14 

Aldermen  and  assistants  elected  from  the  six  wards  annually  .  14 

Recorder  appointed  by  governor  and  serving  "  during  pleasure"  14 

His  importance  in  the  government 14 

Corporate  powers  under  the  charter  • 15 

Administrative  and  legislative  activities 16 

Punishment  of  offenders    . 16 

What  constituted  a  quorum             16 

The  court  of  mayor  and  aldermen 17 

The  duke's  instructions  consonant  with  Dutch  practices  ...  17 

Attempt  to  distinguish  civil  and  criminal  cases .       18 

Court  of  general  sessions  not  "  exclusively  criminal  "     ....  19 
Court  of    mayor  and  aldermen.     Examples  of   both  civil   and 

criminal  cases     • 21 

Admission  of  freemen  vested  in  court,  but  irregularly  assumed 

by  common  council 23 

Care  of  poor,  not  mentioned  in  the  charter,  assumed  regularly 

by  the  court  after  1700 ...  23 

Non-judicial  activities 24 

Provisions  for  payment  of  witnesses  and  counsel  in  case  of  need.  24 

Jury  duty 25 

Court  regulations  of  1701 25 

Powers  of  individual  members  of  the  court  as  justices  of  the  peace  26 

The  mayor  .    .               26 

An  appointee  of  the  governor.     Not  elected  by  people  till  1834  ^6 

Empowered  to  grant  tavern  licenses ...  27 

The  town  clerk 27 

An  appointee  of  the  governor  ...           27 

Preservation  of  records  always  of  much  concern .  28 

Volumes  of  records  before  1700   ...       28 

William  Sharpas's  long  and  faithful  services .    .  28 

Accumulated  records  delivered  to  his  successor  in  1740  .    -  29 

Clerk  cf  the  market 29 

An  appointee  of  the  governor 27 

Duties  not  prescribed  by  charter  ...           29 

Treasurer  or  chamberlain  ...           .... .  29 

An  annual  appointee  of  the  common  council 29 


CONTENTS  vii 

•AGE 

Office  not  regulated  until  1710            29 

Resulting  disorder  in  accounts 30 

Coroner        •    •  31 

Probably  an  appointee  of  the  governor 32 

Mentioned  rarely  in  the  records 31 

The  duties  of  a  coroner  sometimes  shifted  to  other  officials  .   .  32 

Sheriff 32 

An  annual  appointee  of  go\fernor    .    .  32 

Associated  with  the  court      ....  32 

Regular  office  hours  after  1701 32 

Constables  elected  annually  by  wards.               33 

High  constable  appointed  by  mayor      ...       33 

Marshal  appointed  by  mayor  "  with  the  advice  of  the  court  "     .    .  33 

Officials  sworn  in  annually  on  October  fourteenth  33 

The  question  of  administering  the  oath  in .  olved  in  the  disputed 

election  of  1701 33 

Compensation  of  officials 34 

Not  mentioned  in  charter 34 

Fees  of  the  mayor  and  the  clerk  of  the  market 34 

Commission  of  treasurer 34 

Marshal  and  town  c'erk  salaried 35 

Common    counciimen    non-salaried  although  demands  on 

their  time  were  great .                ....           35 

No  glaring  evidences  of  graft  methods  prior  to  1731    ...  36 

Opportunities  for  revenue  afforded  by  charter •  .    .  36 

Moneys  accruing  from  public  improvements 36 

Moneys  from  licenses  and  freedoms 37 

Sale  and  lease  of  lands 37 

Royalties — never  productive  of  revenue 38 

Occasional  tax  on  property  for  special  needs ...  38 

Income  from  the  lease  of  the  ferry  the  largest  annual  revenue 

item       38 

The  custom  of  mortgaging  the  ferry  income                 ...  38 

Annual  budget  total 38 

The  Cornbury  charter .  39 

The  result  of  a  question  concerning  municipal  ferry  rights  .    .  39 

Increase  in  public  works  since  1686  shown  therein 39 

CHAPTER  II 
REGULATION  OF  TRADE  AND  INDUSTRY 

Trade  the  dominant  note  at  the  very  beginning 40 

Mediums  of  exchange 40 

Bolting  monopoly  granted  by  Andros 41 


viii  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Regulation  of  the  bread  loaf 42 

Bakers'  violations  of  ordinances  ..........  43 

Regulation  of  size  of  barrel  ... 44 

Bolting  monopoly  under  Governor  Dongan 44 

Violations  ot  the  same    .    .        45 

Freemen      ... 45 

Qualifications .       . 46 

Ordinances  protecting  .  .46 

Corresponding  burgher  right  in  Dutch  city    ....  46 

Trade  in  liquors  in  New  Amsterdam  .  47 

The  excise          47 

Tapsters'  licenses  .    .  ...  .  50 

Complaints  against  the  business 50 

Tapsters  prohibited  from  being  pawn  brokers        .        51 

Sunday  sale 51 

Sale  to  Indians  ....  •.    .  51 

Trade  in  liquors  in  New  York          .  52 

Limitations  under  Governor  Dongan 52 

Community  responsibility 53 

Violations  of  ordinances.  54 

Extent  revealed  by  statistics 56 

Markets        .  56 

Two  locations  in  1664.    .    .  56 

Slaughtering  privilege  to  the  highest  bidder      57 

Cattle,  supply  and  valuation.  57 

Dutch  regulations  continued  under  English  rule      57 

Innovations  of  Governor  Andros.  .  ......  58 

Annual  fair  ....  ...  58 

Weekly  market  on  Saturday 58 

Revenue  granted  to  city  by  Governor  Dongan  on  conditions  .  59 

Conditions  removed  after  a  conference.    ...  .    .  59 

Regulations  made  by  common  council 59 

The  clerk  of  the  market.  60 

Changes  in  location,  1684      .  60 

Expansion  in  1691. .    .  6c 

Second  meat  market  at  the  Old  Slip  .  60 

Fish,  fruit  and  vegetable  market  near  city  hall 60 

New  market  house  at  foot  of  Broad  Street 61 

Expansion,  1691  to  1731 61 

House  at  Burgers  Path      6: 

House  at  east  end  of  Wall  Street.          .    . 61 

Expense  of  construction  assumed  by  community  bene- 
fited  ...  61 


CONTENTS  ix 

PAGE 

Special  war  order  during  second  intercolonial  war 61 

Slaughtering  in  English  city .    .  61 

Prohibited  within  city  limits,  1691 62 

House  at  Smiths  Fly   ...           62 

Dutch  regulations  in  force ...  62 

Prohibition  within  city  limits  repealed ...  62 

Structures  in  Queen  Street  declared  a  nuisance 62 

New  house  constructed  near  Long  Island  ferry  terminal,  1696  62 

New  ordinances,  1698                         62 

Old  structures  declared  a  nuisance,  1720 63 

New  establishment  of  John  Kelly       63 

New  conditions  prescribed.    •    •        63 

Survey  of  markets,  1731 ....  63 

Carmen.  .... 63 

Licensed  at  their  own  request  by  Dutch  magistrates  ...       -63 

Early  regulations                                                   64 

Complaints  against 64 

Overseer  appointed .  65 

First  regulations  under  English  rule.                           65 

"Strike"  of  1684.        67 

Regulations  of  1691 67 

Impressed  into  service  as  carters  of  refuse 68 

Apprenticeship 69 

System  in  evidence  prior  to  any  recorded  ordinance 70 

First  ordinance,  1694;  amended,  1711 •  70 

Form  of  indenture  copied  from  England 71 

Variations  in  form .    .               ....  71 

Agreement  not  readily  annulled  by  court 72 

Girls  as  apprentices 72 

Children  •' put  out  "  by  church  wardens                      .    .        .    .    .  73 

Freedom  of  the  city  gained  at  expiration  of  term 73 

CHAPTER  III 

REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS 

The  city  in  1664. .                                         75 

A  congested  area          •    •  75 

The  streets  .    .                    .    .    .            .....  75 

"The  Great  Ditch" 76 

Lined  with  sheet  piling 76 

Sheet  piling  ordered  renewed  by  Governor  Lovelace  ...  76 

Surveyed  and  ordered  to  be  rilled  in  by  common  council.  .  77 

The  overseers  of  roads  and  fences 77 

Their  instructions 78 


X  CONTENTS 

FACE 

Road  to  Harlem  laid  out  under  their  direction 79 

Recommendations  of    Governor    Lovelace   concerning   paving   of 

streets  and  constructing  wharves  on  the  waterside 79 

The  first  sidewalk .    .  79 

Survey  and  condemnation  proceedings  of  1674 80 

The  committee  of  eight  in  the  place  of  overseers 80 

The  first  city  surveyors       -  ...  ...  81 

The  sale  of  lots  of  land  near  the  dock  to  pay  for  the  Dongan 

charter 82 

Additional  water  lots  surveyed  and  sold 83 

Ward  committees  on  streets  after  the  issuance  of  Dongan  charter.  83 
Sale  of  more  water  lots  to  secure  funds  for  new  market  house  and 

ferry  house 84 

Conditions  imposed  on  purchasers  in  1691 85 

Sale  of  land  to  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church 86 

More  water  lots  sold  to  meet  expenses  incurred  for  military  defense  87 

Sale  of  an  upland  tract  to  help  pay  for  a  new  city  hall 88 

Policy  of  leasing  rather  than  selling  land. 88 

Possible  reasons  for  the  change  89 

Advantages  accruing  to  the  later  city 90 

The  problem  of  sanitation  then  and  now.  . 90 

Restraint  of  hogs  sought  by  Governor  Stuyvesant  .        .  91 

Experiment  with  nose  rings 93 

First  municipal  ordinances  for  the  disposal  of  refuse 93 

The  householder's  responsibility.  93 

Throwing  refuse  into  the  Graft  heavily  penalized 94 

Privies,  unfortunately  located,  ordered  removed 94 

The  unfenced  graveyard  at  the  mercy  of  hogs.  ....  94 

Allard  Anthony's  hogs  and  broken  fences  sources  of  trouble  with 

his  neighbors. 95 

Hogs  ordered  to  be  confined  by  the  New  Orange  magistrates.    .    .  96 

A  milder  edict  from  the  subsequent  English  magistrates.  97 

Rigid  enforcement  lacking ....  98 

Responsibility  of  each  householder  for  a  clean  street  front  continued 

in  the  English  city 99 

System  of  garbage  removal  introduced,  1670 99 

Carting  done  by  carmen 99 

Carts  loaded  by  householders.  .    .    .    .  99 

Obstructions  in  the  streets  subject  to  an  ordinance  .  .    .  99 

Dumping  refuse  in  the  street  subject  to  a  fine,  one  half  of  which  to 

be  claimed  by  informant 100 

A  salaried  supervisor  or  scavenger  introduced    •  .    .  101 

Householders  still  responsible  for  sweeping  dirt  into  heaps  .    .    .  101 


CONTENTS 


XI 


"  Clean  up  crusades  "  traceable  to  early  days 102 

New  street  cleaning  ordinances  in  1702  102 

Scavenger's  salary  reduced  and  area  to  clean  limited 103 

Explanations  for  same  103 

Rain  as  a  street  cleaning  agency 103 

Its  effect  on  Broad  Street  and  the  dock  ....  104 

Arrangements  for  lighting  the  streets 104 

CHAPTER  IV 
THE  DOCK 

The  first  wharf  inherited  by  the  city • 104 

The  new  dock 106 

Reasons  for  a  different  location .   .  106 

Its  construction 107 

Regulations  for  its  use .    .  107 

Enlargement  required .       ......           ...  108 

Construction  by  the  English  of  a  new  dock  in  the  same  location    .  109 

The  special  assessment  for  the  same ICQ 

Care  in  building • 109 

New  regulations               •    .                      109 

Fees  for  dockage  and  anchorage  .           no 

Bridge  money .    .            no 

The  haven  master in 

Collection  of  fees  on  commission        in 

Accounts  required  in  1684  from  all  who  had  held  the  office  .    .  ill 
Action  on  the  order  of  the  provincial  authorities  resented  by  the 

common  council 112 

Commission  method  abandoned  in  favor  of  leasing  to  highest 

bidder           .              112 

Maintenance  of  dock  ...           113 

Repairs  made  at  city's  expense 113 

Repairs  included  under  dockmasters' obligations  beginning"  in 

1689    .    .  .  .        .    .        -113 

Repairs  made  reluctantly  by  Dockmaster  Marshall          ....  113 

Peculiar  circumstances  attending  Marshall's  second  lease.   .    .  114 

Repairs  considered  burdensome  by  Marshall 115 

Compromise  reached  between  Marshall  and  the  common  coun- 
cil •    .                   115 

Dock  enlarged  in  1697 • 117 

Foul  conditions  under  Dockmaster  Clarke 117 

New  regulations  in  consequence 117 

Subsequent  dockmasters •    • 118 


xii  CONTENTS 

PACK 

Complaints  against  elusive  skippers 118 

Experience  with  a  combination  of  lessees 119 

Policy  of  leasing  abandoned  in  favor  of  a  salaried  dockmaster  .  122 

New  troubles .  122 

The  city  the  loser  under  every  scheme 122 

CHAPTER  V 

THE  FERRIES 

Ferry  revenues  granted  to  the  city  by  Governor  Dongan 124 

Importance  of  the  grant 124 

The  first  lease  of  the  ferry  to  Long  Island 125 

Competition  for  the  second  ferry  lease 126 

Ferriage  by  private  parties  and  its  effect 127 

Mortgaging  the  ferry  revenue             128 

Conditions  for  farming  the  ferry,  1699 ....  129 

Increase  in  rates  of  ferriage          .    .               .    .  130 

Ferryman  Euwatse  in  arrears  for  rent  .    .               131 

Prolonged  negotiation  with  common  council  thereon        .        .  131 

Ferryman  Benson's  controversy  with  the  magistrates    .           ...  133 

Private  ferriage  again 134 

Settlement  with  Benson     ....           136 

Changed  regulations  with  James  Harding  as  lessee             137 

Privilege  of  a  second  ferry  to   Long  Island  sought  by  a  Brooklyn 

man ..........           138 

Protest  against  the  same  by  common  council 138 

Grant  of  the  Cornbury  charter                141 

Ferry  leased  to  Dirck  Adolph  {or  £21 1  per  annum,  1712 142 

Extensive  repairs  to  buildings  and  landing  wharf 342 

Provincial  act  regulating  the  feiry,  1717  ...       143 

Ferry  privilege  divided                .  143 

Resulting  complications 144 

Single  lessee  again,  1728 145 

Ferry  across  the  Harlem  River                   .......           ...  146 

Leased  to  Johannes  Verveelen,  1667  .    .        .    .               146 

Regulations  antedating  those  of  the  Long  Island  ferry  ....  146 

Difficulty  in  checking  travel  by  the  lord  at  Spuyten  Duyvel     .  147 

Location  changed  to  Spuyten  Duyvel  .    .        148 

New  agreement  with  Verveelen  .......    ....  148 

First  bridcre  connecting   Manhattan  Island  with  the  mainland 

constructed  at  Spuyten  Duyvel 150 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  WATCH 

Constables  instead  of  policemen  in  early  city  .........    .  151 

Dutch  origins  shown  in  their  instructions  ..........  152 

The  sellout  and  his  activities    ...........    .   .  152 

Unpopularity  of  Cornelius  van  Tienhoven  in  that  office  154 

The  office  made  more  important  under  Governor  Colve  154 

The  "  Rattle  Watch  "     .    .  ........  155 

The  first  "  police  captain  "  .......  156 

Collection  for  the  protection  afforded    .......  156 

Duties  detailed  .    .  ......  156 

The  watch  maintained  during  first  English  occupation  under  regula- 

tions similar  to  Dutch  ....  ............  158 

"  Sheriff  "  the  English  name  for  "  schout  "  ........  159 

More  important  than  constable  at  first  .    .       .....  159 

"  The  Constables  Watch"  after  the  English  reoccupation    ....  159 

Regulations     ........  ..........  159 

Friction  at  times  between  English  constable  and  Dutch  watch- 

men ..................  1  60 

Duty  shirked  at  times  .  .........    .....    .  160 

Elders  and  deacons  excused  ............    .....  162 

Constables  watch  displaced  by  military  watch    ..........  162 

Citizens  and  constables  displaced  by  militia  companies  and  their 

officers  ........................  163 

New  orders     ...        ....................  163 

Constables  watch  restored,  1684  ................  163 

Probable  new  orders    ....................  164 

Military  watch,  1689    ......................  164 

Why  needed    .......................  164 

Increased  expense  for  wood  and  candles  ...........  164 

Civil  watch  once  more,  1697  ...................  165 

"  Watch  and  Bellmen  "  ..................  165 

Prominence  of  the  marshal  ......       ......    .    .  166 

Origin  of  "  police  commissioner  "  and  the  "  uniform  "     .  167 

Constables  watch  probably  maintained  during  summer  season  168 

Origin  of  police  headquarters   ...............    .  168 

CHAPTER  VII 

FIRE 

First  houses  of  inflammable  material  ....    ...........  169 

Penalty  by  provincial  law  for  householders'   negligence  result- 

ing; in  fire     ........................  169 


xiv  CONTENTS 

PACE 

Chimneys  inspected  by  provincial  fire  masters 170 

Additional  precautions  suggested  by  director  general's  order  of 

1656  .    .                   170 

Dutch  fire  masters  held  in  little  respect  .    .        .    . 171 

Schout's  fire  orders  not  taken  seriously 172 

First  fire  apparatus             .           . 173 

Leather  buckets  distributed  among  the  inhabitants 173 

Fire  ladders  and  fire  hcoks        173 

Duties  of  Dutch  fire  masters  assumed  by  English  fire  wardens   .    .  173 

Inspection  of  buildings .    .  173 

Care  of  apparatus  .       .               173 

Renewed  attention  to  fire  protection,  1672 174 

Activity  of  New  Orange  fire  masters    .    .           . 175 

Instructions  to  English  "  brandmasters,"  1675      .    .  177 

Regulations  limiting  fires  on  the  water  side  and  aboard  vessels  .    .  177 

Fire  orders  amended,  1683 .    .  178 

New  scheme  regarding  buckets             178 

Appointment  of  a  chimney  sweeper ...  178 

Dirck  Vanderburgh's  long  period  of  usefulness  in  fire  prevention  .  179 

Ward  responsibility  after  issuance  of  Dongan  charter 181 

CHAPTER  VIII 

CHARITIES  AND  CORRECTION 

Ordinances  of  1684  relating  to  strangers 182 

Such  to  be  reported  to  the  mayor  by  the  constables 182 

Citizen  obligations  to  be  considered  by  the  newcomer    ....  183 

Pauperism  not  avoided 183 

Paupers  in  Dutch  city                183 

Cared  for  by  the  churches 183 

Church  deacons  accountable  for  moneys  dispensed  .....  184 

Paupers  in  English  city 184 

Dutch  practice  followed  at  first 184 

Relief  from  city  treasury,  1685 184 

Ward  responsibility  after  issuance  of  Dongan  charter     .   .       .  184 

Collection  taken  in  time  of  special  need                  185 

Cases  of  individual  attention  by  common  council  after  1691      .  185 

Allowance  in  other  forms  than  money 185 

"  Overseers  of  the  poor  "  as  a  committee  of  the  common 

council             .    .           ...           ...       .       ......  186 

Overseers  of  the  poor  and  public  works  created  by  provincial 

act,   1695  .                              .           186 

Annual  charity  budget  introduced 187 


CONTENTS  XV 

PACK 

First  charity  bequest  to  the  city,  1697 187 

Care  of  poor  transferred  to  church  wardens    . 188 

Orders  for  relief  regularly  issued  from  mayor's  court  after 

1713 188 

First  pauper  list 188 

First  agitation  for  a  poor  house 189 

Temporary  provision   .    .               189 

Classes  of  dependents              190 

Treatment  of  individual  cases 190 

First  semblance  of  hospitals .    .  191 

Correction   ....        192 

The  colonial  jails 192 

Dutch  instructions  to  keeper 192 

Keeper's  allowance 193 

English  regulations  like  (he  Dutch 194 

Forms  of  punishment  other  than  imprisonment    . 194 

Reason  for  the  fine  as  the  most  frequent 194 

The  whipping  post,  pillory  and  stocks      194 

Penalties  in  individual  cases  under  Dutch  rule  ........  196 

Similar  penalties  under  English  rule 198 


CHAPTER  I 
INTRODUCTORY — GOVERNMENT 

THE  infant  city  of  New  Amsterdam  in  1653  was  small  in 
area,  small  in  population.  From  the  wall  south  to  the 
water  was  a  scant  half-mile.  The  length  of  the  wall  rep- 
resenting the  greatest  latitudinal  reach  of  the  city  was  about 
the  same.  North  of  the  wall  was  wildness  or  possibly 
wilderness.  From  the  water's  edge  narrow  streets  that  had 
grown,  or  better,  were  growing  out  of  lanes,  reached  up  the 
hill  toward  the  wall.  This  wall  and  the  fort  at  the  island's 
tip  end  were  two  evidences,  at  least,  of  the  fact  that  a  garri- 
son was  a  permanent  part  of  the  town's  equipment.  With- 
in the  area  of  the  fort  was  the  church,  peace  being  guaran- 
teed by  military  strength.  Out  of  the  space  bordering  the 
fort  on  the  land-side  quite  naturally  a  broader  road  led 
northward — the  Broad  Way.  What  later  became  Broad 
Street  was  then  a  ditch  or  inlet  from  the  harbor,  the  Graght, 
as  the  Dutch  called  it.  The  story  of  how  pathways  fringed 
tkis  inlet  on  either  side  until  orders  were  given  to  fill  it  in  is 
told  in  the  third  chapter,  entitled  "  Regulation  of  Land  and 
Streets." 

The  visitor  to  the  young  city  would  also  be  impressed 
very  quickly  with  the  commercial  aspect  of  the  place.  With- 
in  easy  reach  of  the  fort  eastward  were  the  weigh-house  and 
dock — the  one  dock  that  served  the  municipality  for  over 
half  a  century.  The  care  of  this  dock  was  one  of  the  gov- 
ernment's most  vexing  problems.  Which  would  work  the 
better,  to  pay  a  dock-master  a  salary  and  look  to  him  to 


2  NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY  [2 

collect  all  revenues  and  deposit  such  in  the  city  treasury, 
or  to  lease  the  dock  and  its  revenues  to  the  one  who  would 
offer  the  most  at  a  "  public  outcry,"  expecting  the  lessee 
to  keep  the  dock  in  repair?  The  experiments  with  both 
systems  are  delineated  fully  in  the  chapter  on  "  The  Dock." 
Practically  overlooking  this  shipping  centre  was  the  first 
city  hall,  where  Dutch  burgomasters  and  schepens  deliber- 
ated and  were  later  succeeded  by  the  English  mayor  and 
aldermen,  or  common  council. 

A  ferry  to  Long  Island  had  become  a  necessity  before 
the  city  was  chartered;  this  came  under  municipal  regula- 
tion speedily  and  called  forth  extended  deliberation  and, 
indeed,  litigation.1  It  was  a  long  time  before  the  North 
River  strand  came  to  have  anything  like  the  busy  aspect  of 
the  shore  facing  Long  Island.  It  was  along  this  East  River 
line  that  the  city  found  ready  sale  for  many  "  water  lots  "  in 
the  late  seventeenth  and  early  eighteenth  centuries.  Funds 
from  this  source  helped  to  construct  a  new  city  hall  in 
i6gg.2 

This  limited  area  was  occupied  by  less  than  120  houses 
and  perhaps  a  thousand  people  when  rights  of  municipal 
government  were  first  granted  to  the  community.3  Ten 
years  earlier,  when  Father  Jogues,  the  Jesuit  missionary,  was 
here  on  his  way  back  to  France,  he  wrote  that  there  were 
men  "  of  different  sects  and  nations,3  and  that  the  direc- 
tor general  told  him  "  there  were  men  of  eighteen  different 
languages  "  *  in  the  town. 

This  cosmopolitan  quality  of  our  citizenship  so  early  is  a 
tradition  for  which  explanation  is  rarely  offered.  It  is  not 
to  be  forgotten  that  the  province  of  New  Netherland  was  not 

5  Ch.  v,  p.  141.  -  Ch.  iii,  p.  88. 

3  Brodhcad,  J.  R.,  History  of  the  State  of  New  York,  vol.  i,  p.  623 
(quoted  from  Albany  Records,  vol.  iv,  pp.  206,  218,  etc.). 

4  Letter  in  New  York  Historical  Collections,  second  series,  vol.  iii,  p.  215. 


3J  INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT  3 

a  product  of  the  Dutch  government,  but  rather  of  a  trading 
company  whose  membership  knew  no  national  limits.  The 
wool  trade  for  several  centuries  had  made  Hollanders  inti- 
mate with  Englishmen  across  the  channel.  Amsterdam  had 
seen  vessels  flying  all  colors  entering  her  harbor.  Coins  of 
all  nationalities  were  exchanged  at  the  Bank  of  Amsterdam. 
Separatist  "  pilgrims  "  from  England  had  made  their  home 
in  Holland  for  several  years  before  they  started  on  the  voy- 
age that  brought  them  to  Plymouth  Rock.  Dutch  and 
English  sailors  side  by  side  had  opposed  the  progress  of  the 
Spanish  Armada. 

So  it  was  natural  rather  than  surprising  that  fortune- 
hunters  from  many  nations  were  numbered  among  the  popu- 
lace of  New  Amsterdam. 

A  community  with  such  a  meagre  population  sought  muni- 
cipal rights  in  1653;  such  a  request  would  seem  strange  in 
these  days ;  indeed,  it  was  strange  then.  Municipal  govern- 
ments were  rare  in  the  thirteen  colonies.  New  York  was  one 
of  but  seventeen  as  late  as  the  Revolution.  The  student  of 
European  history  will  remember  that  European  cities  owed 
their  existence  in  most  cases  to  a  community  desire  for 
special  privileges — privileges  which  they  wanted  badly 
enough  to  pay  high  for  to  their  lord  or  king. 

There  was  no  English  colony  on  the  Atlantic  coast 
whose  voice  in  the  government  was  so  slight  as  in  New 
Netherland.  A  petition  to  the  West  India  Company  for 
municipal  rights  was  the  most  obvious  thing.  It  was  a 
popular  reaction  against  arbitrary  rule.  This  arbitrary  rule 
was  felt  the  more  because  the  provincial  director  resided 
not  somewhere  up  the  river,  but  on  this  same  lower  end  of 
Manhattan  Island.  It  is  no  mere  tradition  that  Director- 
General  Stuyvesant  parted  with  some  of  his  prerogatives 
grudgingly  when  directed  to  do  so  by  the  company.  Also 
the  very  limited  degree  of  freedom  the  director  assumed  to 


4        .     NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY  [4 

grant  the  new  municipality  is  a  matter  of  record  incapable 
of  erasure.1 

A  routine  of  municipal  government  had  become  well  es- 
tablished by  1664,  as  a  glance  at  the  records  of  New  Amster- 
dam clearly  shows.  The  traditions  of  the  "Vaterland"  were 
easily  followed ;  "  as  is  the  custom  in  the  Fatherland  "  ap- 
pears again  and  again.  Raising  the  English  flag  over  the 
fort  did  not  interrupt  or  change  this  routine  to  any  such 
degree  as  some  writers  would  have  us  believe.  The  very 
fact  that  Stuyvesant  had  held  the  reins  so  tightly  over  the 
chartered  city  was  one  reason,  of  course,  for  non-resistance 
to  English  authority.  But  there  was  already  a  goodly 
sprinkling  of  Englishmen  among  the  population,  and  they 
welcomed  the  dethronement  of  the  Dutch  ruler.  There  was 
no  sudden  change  even  in  the  titles  of  the  city  officials. 
Burgomasters  and  schepens  continued  to  be  the  terms  used 
for  several  months  before  the  change  to  mayor  and  alder- 
men was  made. 

Even  under  these  new  names  the  procedure  of  the  past 
was  followed  very  closely  in  administrative  sessions,  while 
judicial  matters  were  conducted  by  identical  officials  in  separ- 
ate session.  True  to  English  tradition  we  find  the  jury  in- 
troduced,2 but  this  did  not  imply  a  great  change.  The 
spirit  of  the  English  jury  always  had  reflected  to  an  ex- 
tent the  Dutch  method  of  choosing  an  arbiter  or  arbiters 
"  to  decide  between  the  two,"  3  a  method  which  was  not 
wholly  displaced  now.  4  The  court  messengers — sometimes 
called  city  messengers — continued  as  before  under  the  name, 

1  Osgood,  II.  L.,  American  Colonies  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  vol.  ii, 
chs.  v,  vi  and  vii. 


5] 


L\  TROD  UCTOR  Y— GO  VERN  MEN  T 


at  first,  of  sergeants,1  later  known  as  marshals.2  Schout 
Allard  Anthony,  now  rechristened  sheriff 3  by  Governor 
Nicolls,  continued  his  prosecuting  work  as  before.  The 
governor  before  swearing  in  this  new  board  was  careful  to 
declare  that  he  had  nothing  to  say  "  against  the  service  of 
those  retiring  nor  against  their  demeanour." 

Joannes  Nevius,  Dutch  secretary,  became  English  secre- 
tary.0 This  does  not  mean  that  he  had  to  write  or  did  write 
in  the  English  language,  the  majority  of  the  records  from 
1665  to  1673  being  in  Dutch.0  Secretary  and  sergeants,  too, 
were  appointed  by  the  new  board  of  magistrates  at  their 
first  meeting,  June  15/25,  1665.  They  also  appointed  a  con- 
stable for  the  village  of  New  Harlem.  Included  in  the 
oath  that  these  officials  took  were  promises  to  preserve  the 
peace,  to  execute  faithfully  the  warrants  of  the  court  and  to 
appoint  a  deputy  in  case  of  absence.7 

Since  August  16,  1660,  the  unincorporated  village  of  New 
Harlem  had  had  an  Inferior  Court  of  Justice  made  up  of 
three  appointees  of  Director-General  Stuyvesant,  one  of 
whom  was  designated  to  represent  the  schout  there.  A 
limited  degree  of  legislative  power  was  also  granted  to  this 
court.8  This  was  the  beginning  of  what  might  easily  have 
become  an  entirely  independent  government  for  this  portion 
of  the  island.  Governor  Nicolls,  however,  discerned  laxity 
among  the  officials  there,  and  in  his  proclamation  of  June 
12/22,  1665,  constituting  the  new  municipal  government 
heretofore  described,  declared  "That  the  Inhabitants  of  New 

1  Rec.  X.  Am.,  vol.  v,  pp.  252,  301.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vi.  p.  217. 

:1  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  251.  'Ibid.,  vol.  v.  p.  251. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  252  (Xevius  was  soon  succeeded  by  Nicholas  Bayard). 

6  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  252.  7  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  254. 

*  Albany  Records,  vol.  ix,  p.  371,  quoted  in  Riker,  James,  History  of 
Harlem,  p.  196. 


6  NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY  [6 

Yorke,  New  Harlem,  with  all  other  His  Majesty's  Subjects, 
Inhabitants  upon  this  Island,  .  .  .  are,  and  shall  bee  for  ever, 
accounted,  Nominated  and  Established,  as  one  Body  Poli- 
tique  &  Corporate,  under  the  Government  of  a  Mayor, 
Aldermen  and  Sheriffe."  1  In  accordance  therewith  we  are 
prepared  to  find  this  new  "  government "  notifying  the 
magistrates  of  New  Harlem  that  they  are  "  discharged  from 
their  office."  At  the  same  time  the  new  constable  for  the 
locality  was  authorized  to  select  "  three  or  four  persons, 
who  shall  have  to  decide  any  differences  or  dispute  to  the 
extent  of  five  pounds  sterling."  An  appeal  from  their  de- 
cision might  be  taken  to  the  mayor's  court,  provided  the 
appellant  paid  the  constable  six  stivers  and  the  costs  in- 
volved.2 Two  cases  of  such  appeal  are  recorded  in  the 
court  minutes  of  New  Amsterdam  on  October  3  of  the 
same  year.3  After  mentioning  one  other  slight  change  we 
shall  have  the  Dutch  government  properly  anglicized.  This 
was  the  action  of  the  court  in  doing  away  with  the  office 
of  treasurer  and  in  making  the  collector  of  monies  cus- 
todian and  disburser  of  the  same — no  disbursement  being 
permitted  without  the  order  and  signature  of  the  mayor  and 
secretary.4 

One  most  interesting  incident  in  municipal  history  must 
be  associated  with  the  nine  years  that  elapsed  before  New 
York  became  New  Orange.  It  occurred  on  the  arrival 
of  Lovelace  to  succeed  Nicolls  as  governor  in  1668,  and  took 
the  form  of  an  expression  of  willingness  both  on  the  part  of 
the  Duke  of  York  and  the  new  governor  to  consent  to  any 
"  reasonable  and  practicable  "  changes  "  for  the  better  regu- 
lation" of  "Your  Corporation"  as  the  mayor  and  aldermen 
should  suggest.  Tokens  of  good  will  in  the  shape  of  a  cor- 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  v,  p.  249.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  254. 

3 Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  296,  297.  *Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  255. 


7]  INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT  7 

poration  seal,  a  silver  mace  and  gowns  for  the  magistrates 
accompanied  this  generous  expression.1  The  only  sugges- 
tion offered  was  that  of  a  return  to  the  Dutch  custom  of  the 
governor's  choosing  the  magistrates  from  a  double  number 
presented  to  him  by  the  magistrates  in  office.  This  plan  was 
adopted  at  once  and  the  first  choice  from  such  nominations 
was  made,  October  9,  1669.*  There  seems  to  have  been  a 
due  amount  of  care  that  a  portion  of  those  chosen  should  be 
Dutchmen. 

After  New  York  had  been  newly  christened  New  Orange, 
in  the  summer  of  1673,  with  the  Dutch  again  in  control,  it 
immediately  became  evident  that  there  was  no  idea  on  their 
part  of  reciprocating  English  liberality  in  municipal  office 
sharing.  The  mayor  in  office,  John  Lawrence,  was  an 
Englishman  and  so  ex-Mayor  Steenwyck  was  directed  to 
call  the  burghers  together  for  the  purpose  of  appointing 
"  either  four,  six  or  more  from  their  midst  "  to  confer  with 
the  Dutch  admirals.  Six  men  were  appointed — all  Dutch- 
men.3 These  delegates  were  ordered  to  call  another  meet- 
ing which  should  present  a  list  of  nominees  for  burgomas- 
ters and  schepens.  There  was  this  interesting  limitation, 
however,  that  these  nominees  must  be  of  "  the  Reformed 
Christian  Religion  "  and  also  be  men  of  property.  If  this 
regime  had  been  permanent,  the  municipality  would  have 
had  class  and  religious  distinctions  to  live  down.  A  real 
Dutch  magistracy  of  schout,  burgomasters  and  schepens 
assumed  office,  August  17,  1673.  To  them  the  late  Mayor 
Lawrence  was  called  upon  to  surrender  seal,  mace,  and 
magistrates'  gowns.  Constables'  staves  were  also  called  in.* 

This  newly  ordained  magistracy  was  quite  ready,  how- 
ever, to  accept  any  additional  prerogatives  that  had  accrued 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  198-9.  2 Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  201. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  395-6.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  397-9- 


8  NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY  [g 

during  the  English  period;  the  whole  island  was  theirs  to 
rule.  At  once  they  chose  for  New  Harlem  and  also  for  the 
increasingly  important  region  "  on  this  side  of  Haerlem  " 
an  under-schout  and  schepens,  corresponding  to  the  afore- 
mentioned English  officials  for  New  Harlem.  Both  locali- 
ties were  allowed  the  "  Fatherland  "  practice  of  nominating 
double  the  number  of  officials  required  to  fill  the  offices.1 
For  each  of  these  localities,  instructions — minutely  detailed 
— issued  from  the  "  Worshipful  Court,"  2  which  in  turn 
was  instructed  by  the  "  Honorable  Honor  Governor  Gen- 
eral." These  instructions  would  demand  our  serious  con- 
sideration if  they  had  been  destined  to  enjoy  a  longer  life. 
We  may  stop  to  observe  one  curiosity — that,  after  a  motion 
had  been  put  by  the  "  first  Burgomaster,"  the  governor's 
commissioner,  who  was  the  presiding  officer,  voted  first  and 
then  the  burgomasters  and  schepens  in  turn  according  to 
rank,  the  president  coming  in  for  another  vote  in  case  of  a 
tie.4  In  general  the  purpose  of  all  the  instructions  was  that 
the  instructor  might  retain  the  whip  hand. 

Incidentally,  the  instruction  whereby  the  burgo- 
masters and  schepens  were  called  upon  to  accept  a  deputy 
from  the  governor  as  a  presiding  officer  was  much  resented 
by  those  magistrates  and  well  nigh  disrupted  the  govern- 
ment. The  magistracy  yielded  only  under  the  governor's 
threat  to  discharge  its  members  from  office.5  In  a  case 
before  the  court  a  few  weeks  later,  Minvielle  vs.  Bedloo,6 
we  are  not  surprised  t'o  find  the  burgomasters  and  schep- 
ens all  voting  against  Captain  Knyf ,  who  presided  "  on  be- 
half of  the  Governor." 

Under  threatening  skies  of  this  sort  the  municipal  bark 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  400-401.     2  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  21-25. 
3  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  36-39.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  37. 

blbid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  40-43.  6  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  50. 


91 


IN  TROD  UCTOR  Y— GOVERNMENT 


of  New  Orange  set  forth.  It  seems  providential  that  it 
did  not  have  far  to  sail  before  it  should  fly  the  English  flag 
once  more.  The  first  record  of  the  English  city  after  the 
reoccupation  in  1674  bears  date  of  November  9.*  A 
second  proclamation  by  Governor  Andros  the  following  day 
commissioned  a  mayor,  five  aldermen  and  a  sheriff,  one  of 
the  aldermen  being  named  also  as  deputy  mayor.  The  last 
two  mayors  under  the  first  English  rule,  Mathias  Nicolls 
and  John  Lawrence,  were  named  as  mayor  and  deputy 
mayor  respectively,  although  the  Dutch  were  represented 
on  the  board.  There  was  nothing  in  the  governor's  proc- 
lamation, however,  that  suggested  any  actual  change  in 
government  and  laws;  again  it  was  largely  a  change  in 
nomenclature. 

We  shall  find  it  of  advantage  as  we  approach  the  time  of 
the  Dongan  charter  to  observe  a  little  more  closely  this  ad- 
ministrative-legislative-judicial magistracy  which  consti- 
tuted the  municipal  government.  "  Court  of  Schout,  Burgo- 
masters and  Schepens  "  was  the  term  regularly  applied  to  the 
Dutch  magistracy,  and  its  records  are  known  as  the  "  Court 
Minutes  of  New  Amsterdam."  Matters  purely  administra- 
tive, after  the  custom  in  old  Amsterdam,  were  thought  to 
concern  the  burgomasters  only  and,  commencing  March  8, 
1657,  these  two  officials  began  to  hold  weekly  meetings  apart 
from  the  court  to  "  consult  then  together  about  all  that  may 
concern  the  City,  and  to  dispose  thereof  as  shall  be  found 
proper."  2 

It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  judicial  business  was 
sometimes  transacted  by  the  burgomasters  at  these  meet- 
ings. Likewise,  proceedings  other  than  judicial  are  found 

1  N.  Y.  Documentary  History,  vol.  Hi,  p.  79. 

2  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  p.  140.     Administrative  minates  up  to  January 
28,  1661  are  found  in  this  volume,  pp.  140-267. 


I0          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [IO 

in  the  records  of  the  court.  For  instance,  the  court  min- 
utes of  December  9,  1659  record  the  appointment  of 
Mighiel  Jansen  and  Thomas  Hall  to  settle  the  difference 
between  Burger  Jorisen  and  Hans  Vos.1  It  is  the  burgo- 
masters alone,  however,  in  their  session,  who  receive  the 
report  of  the  arbitrators  and  take  further  action  in  the 
matter.2  Again,  other  measures  such  as  involved  schools 
and  schoolmasters,  emanated  sometimes  from  the  burgo- 
masters alone,3  sometimes  from  the  court.4 

In  English  New  York  there  was  the  same  practice  of  a 
court  session  and  a  council  session.  The  mayor  and  alder- 
men (November  9,  1683)  in  explaining  to  Governor  Dongan 
their  practices  said  that  they  "  did  make  such  peculiar  laws 
and  orders  as  they  Judged  Convenient  ffor  ye  Well  Gov- 
erning ye  Inhabitants  of  said  Corporation  &  held  once  in 
14  dayes  or  oftener  on  speciall  desire  or  occasion  a  Court 
of  Judicature  att  ye  Citty  hall."  5  Previous  to  the  Dongan 
charter,  whether  their  work  was  legislative  or  judicial,  it 
was  precisely  the  same  body  of  magistrates  that  performed 
it  and  it  was  the  same  clerk  who  recorded  their  acts.  Indeed 
their  administrative  and  judicial  sessions  would  frequently 
follow  each  other  on  the  selfsame  day,  separated  only  by 
the  ringing  of  the  bell.6 

There  is  an  interesting  record  of  February  27,  1677.  in 
which  a  complaint  is  made  that  court-day  sessions  fre- 
quently last  "  a  long  time  after  ye  appoynted  howre."  As 
might  be  expected,  administrative  matters  often  crept  into 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  iii,  p.  go.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  243. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  223-4,  244>  257- 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  39,  219-20,  348;  vol.  vi,  p.  4. 

5  Minutes  of  the  Common  Council,  vol.  i,  p.  103. 
8  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  250. 

7  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  48. 


H]  INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT  ZI 

the  court  sessions  and  vice  versa.1  One  comes  upon  un- 
expected minutes  like  these,  for  example,  in  the  court  re- 
cords: December  7,  1680,  Gerrett  Hendricksen  was  chosen 
and  sworn  "  Constable  for  the  Bowery,  the  present 
Constable  being  Sick."  Again,  on  January  14,  1679,  a 
petition  from  the  deacons  "  to  be  free  from  the  watch  "  is 
referred  to  the  Governor  "  to  doe  as  hee  shall  see  cause." 
March  24,  1675,  "  hoggs  "  were  prohibited  by  the  court 
from  going  about  the  streets  of  the  city;  and  November  20, 
1677,  a  house  was  ordered  "  built  in  the  Citty  yard  for  Peter 
Paulls,  being  a  lunatick."  Less  often  the  report  of  a  case 
at  law  is  found  actually  recorded  in  the  council  minutes.3 
The  term  "  common  council,"  4  by  the  way,  does  not  appear 
until  there  came  to  be  common  councilmen,  in  i683;5  the 
"  Court  of  Mayor  and  Aldermen  "  is  spoken  of  6  also  as  a 
"  court  of  Record,"  ~  when  judicial  proceedings  are  entirely 
lacking.  Sometimes  the  heading  is  "  Proceedings  att  a 
Meeting  " ; 8  simply  "  Att  a  Meeting  "  9  is  more  used  than 
anything  else. 

A  female  character,  the  wife  of  one  Josias  Hallett  fig- 

1  The  editors  of  The  Minutes  of  the  Common  Council,  1675-1776, 
when  noting  this  fact,  vol.  viii,  p.  145,  ascribe  such  to  misplacement  by 
the  clerk,  but  the  clerk  should  not  be  held  accountable  for  the  many 
other  similar  cases  of  confused  entry. 

1  For  these  items  see  the  Mayor's  Court  Minutes  of  the  above  dates. 

3M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  38 — Wm.  Waldron  &  Jno.  Peterson  Complt.  agt. 
Constable  of  Harlum  and  Severall  other  inhabitants. 

4  Schwab,  John  C.,  History  of  the  New  York  Property  Ta.r,  uses  these 
words  inadvisedly  in  his  references  to  records  so  early  as  1669  (p.  48) 
and  1671   (p.  43). 

5  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  120.  'Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  13,  i<5,  73- 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  67,  68,  75.  It  is  to  be  remembered  in  this  connection 
that  even  today  the  Massachusetts  legislature  goes  by  the  name  of 
'•  General  Court." 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  108.  9  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  <X>. 


12          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [I2 

ures  in  both  the  Common  Council  Minutes  and  the  Mayor's 
Court  Minutes  of  April  1680,  although  in  this  case  it  is 
manifestly  the  clerk's  fault.  In  the  former,  under  date  of 
April  6,  she  was  ordered  to  be  "  Sent  out  of  this  Cytie  and 
out  of  ye  bounds  and  precincts  of  this  Court  before  ye 
Tenth  Day  of  this  Instant  Aprill."  *  In  the  mayor's  court 
records  of  April  27,  reference  is  made  to  the  above-mentioned 
order  and  to  the  carrying  out  of  the  same  by  the  sheriff. 
"  In  contempt  of  which  order "  she  is  back  in  the  city 
again.  So  "tomorrow  by  Eleaven  of  the  Clock  by  ye  Ring- 
ing of  ye  bell  "  she  must  be  gone  again  for  a  three  years' 
banishment  "  under  ye  Penallty  of  Corporall  punishment  at 
ye  Discretion  of  ye  Court  "  if  she  should  return.2 

The  Dongan  charter  provided  for  six  assistants  3  and  the 
distinctive  term  "  common  council  "  was  ordained  to  include 
them  with  mayor,  recorder  and  aldermen.  This  body  was 
empowered  to  "  Call  and  hold  Common  Council  within  ye 
Common  Council  house  or  Citty  Hall."  *  Thereafter  the 
line  is  drawn  rather  more  sharply  between  "  Proceedings  in 
Common  Council  "  and  "  Minutes  of  the  Court  of  Mayor 
and  Aldermen,"  in  which  latter  body  the  assistants  were  not 
authorized  to  participate. 

Before  we  give  the  Dongan  charter  the  close  examination 
which  its  importance  requires,  it  is  well  for  us  to  remember 
that  at  the  very  time  when  New  York  was  petitioning  for  a 
charter  of  greater  privileges,  municipal  corporations  in 
England  were  fighting  for  existence  under  the  determined 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  79. 

3  Mayor's  Court  Minutes,  April  27,  1680. 

3  These  assistants  were  called  "  Common  councilmen  "  in  the  petition 
to  Governor  Dongan  that  preceded  the  granting  of  the  charter.    M.  C.  C., 
vol.  i.  p.  104. 

4  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  p.  297.     The  original  copy  of  the  Dongan 
charter  is  preserved  in  the  New  York  Public  Library. 


!3]  INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT  ^ 

effort  of  crown  and  bench  for  the  revocation  of  their  char- 
ters. The  English  cities,  attacked  ostensibly  on  the  ground 
of  "  abuse  of  their  privileges/''  were  felt  to  be  the  centers 
of  Whig  opposition  to  the  crown.  Chief  Justice  Jeffreys 
"  had  made  all  the  Charters,  like  the  Walls  of  Jericho,  fall 
before  him/'  l  and  the  new  charters  rendered  municipal  offi- 
cials the  equivalent  of,  if  not  actually,  royal  nominees."  It 
was  only  a  year  later  that  the  charter  of  Massachusetts 
was  annulled.3  Even  in  the  province  of  New  York  the 
"  charter  of  Liberty s  and  Privileges  "  which  Dongan  had 
signed  in  1683  was  kept  back  by  James  II  as  "  not  yet 
perfected,"  and  was  later  disallowed.4 

The  Dongan  charter,  given  to  New  York  City  in  1686, 
was  certainly  in  line  with  the  duke's  instructions  to  Dongan 
to  grant  to  the  city  of  New  York  "  immunities  and  privi- 
leges beyond  what  other  parts  of  my  territory  doe  enjoy." 
An  explanation  of  this  may  be  found  in  the  fact  that  many 
changes  established  by  the  charter  were  in  practice  two  or 
three  years  earlier  than  1686.  Governor  Dongan  arrived 
in  New  York,  August  25,  1683;  on  November  9,  following. 
the  city  magistrates  petitioned  him  for  a  charter,  specifying 
the  things  they  desired.0  The  governor  sought  to  be  en- 
lightened on  some  of  the  articles  in  the  petition,  and  to  some 
he  objected.7  Explanations  followed. 's  and  a  little  later 
came  a  request  that  the  "  fforme  and  method  "  indicated  in 
their  petition  be  "  put  in  practice  until  such  Time  as  his 

1  Xorth,  Roger,  Examen.,  p.  626. 

2  Green,  J.  R.,  History  of  the  English  People,  vol.  iv,  pp.  4-5. 

3  Brodhead,  J.  R.,  History  of  the  State  of  Xew  York,  vol.  ii,  p.  417. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  420,  422,  453. 

5  Ar.  Y.  Colonial  Documents,  vol.  iii,  pp.  218,  331-4. 
6M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  102-5. 

'Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  105.  "Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  io(\ 


I4          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [I4 

Royall  highness  pleasure  shall  be  ffurther  knowne  therein."  * 
This  was  so  ordered  by  the  governor,  December  10,  i683,2 
after  which  date  the  Dongan  charter  was  virtually  in  effect. 
In  our  examination  of  the  contents  of  the  charter  we 
shall  consider,  first,  the  common  council,  together  with  the 
latest  additions  to  its  membership,  the  recorder  and  assist- 
ants. The  latter,  like  the  aldermen,  were  to  represent  the 
six  newly  created  wards,  one  for  each.  The  twelve  were 
to  be  elected  by  the  voters  of  their  respective  wards  "  on  ye 
feast  day  of  St.  Michael  the  Arch  Angell  yearly."  3  The 
recorder,  however,  was  an  appointee  of  the  governor  and 
council,  to  serve  "  during  pleasure  "  as  "Assistant  to  the 
Mayor  and  Aldermen  in  ye  Rule  of  Government  of  ye  said 
Citty  and  administration  of  Justice  in  their  Court  of 
Record,"  as  the  governor's  commission  to  James  Graham 
(the  first  incumbent)  reads,  under  date  of  December  4, 
1683. 4  The  most  important  work  of  the  recorder  was  to 
be  in  the  mayor's  court  rather  than  in  the  common  council. 
The  very  fact,  however,  that  he  remained  in  office  "  during 
pleasure  "  gave  him  a  place  in  both  bodies  as  a  pilot  to  a 
ship  of  state  whose  captain  and  crew  were  frequently  chang- 
ing. As  legal  adviser  to  both  bodies,  we  see  in  the  per- 
son of  James  Graham  one  who  might  easily  be  called 
the  first  corporation  counsel  of  the  city  of  New  York.5' 
At  the  first  meeting  of  the  mayor's  court,  in  the  year  1684, 
Mr.  Graham  "  tooke  his  place  on  ye  Bench  on  ye  Right 
hand  of  ye  Mayor."  6  In  the  towns  of  England  the  re- 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  109-10. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  113. 

3  Dongan  charter.     This  feast  day  came  on  September  29. 
4M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  117-8. 

5  A  list  of  the  recorders  of  the  colonial  period  may  be  seen  in  the 
appendix. 

M/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  118. 


!5]  INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT  ^ 

carder  was  an  official  of  long  standing;  the  interesting  ad- 
vice the  recorder  of  Nottingham  gave  in  1521  to  the  magis- 
tracy is  quoted  by  Mrs.  Green  in  her  treatment  of  English 
town  life.1  It  was  distinctly  provided  in  the  charter  that 
the  members  of  the  common  council  were  constituted  "  one 
body  corporate  and  politique  "  by  the  name  of  "  the  mayor, 
Aldermen  &  Commonalty  of  ye  Citty  of  New  York." 

In  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  the  petitioners,  the 
charter,  after  a  recital  of  former  rights  and  privileges  in 
its  opening  paragraphs,  confirmed  the  same  to  the  cor- 
poration.2 As  such  a  corporation  it  should  have  its  seal, 
it  should  be  legally  "  Capable  To  Have,  Gett,  receive  and 
possess  Lands,"  as  well  as  to  "  give,  Grant,  Lett,  Sett  and 
Assigne  the  Same;"  also  "  to  plead  and  be  Impleaded,  An- 
swer and  be  Answered  unto,  Defend  and  be  Defended,"  in 
all  kinds  of  actions  or  suits.3  The  reader  will  find  in  the 
chapter  on  "  Ferries  "  4  a  narration  of  the  circumstances  un- 
der which  the  Corporation  commenced  a  "  Process  at  Law 
Against  Dirck  Benson,  the  Lessee  of  the  ferry."  5  In  the 
chapter  on  "  Municipal  Regulation  of  Lands  and  Streets," 
will  be  detailed  how  the  corporation  used  to  its  advantage 
its  chartered  rights  to  "All  the  Waste,  Vacant,  unpattented, 
and  LTnappropriated  Lands  "  on  the  island  "  reaching  to  the 
low  water  mark."  Another  corporate  power  was  that  of 
making  Tuesday,  Thursday  and  Saturday  of  every  week 
"  Markett  Days."  7  Some  of  the  corporation's  perplexities 
with  the  market  problem  may  be  discovered  in  the  chapter 
on  "  Trade." 

1  Green,    Mrs.   J.   R.,    Town   Life   in    the   Fifteenth    Century,   vol.   ii, 
pp.  347-8. 

2  Dongan  charter  in  .17.  C.  C..  vol.  i,  pp.  291-4. 
'•'•Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  295-6. 

4  Ch.  v,  p.  135.  n  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  235. 

'Dongan  charter  in  .17.  C.  (.'.,  vol.  i,  p.  293.  '  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  303. 


!6          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

It  was  established  by  the  charter  that  the  common  coun- 
cil should  have  "  full  power  &  Authority  "  to  "  make  Laws, 
Orders,  Ordinances  &  Constitutions  "  and  to  "Add,  Alter, 
Demenish  or  reform  them  "  whenever  necessary.  In  their 
law  making  they  were  not  to  contravene  the  laws  of  England 
or  those  of  the  province.  Such  orders  were  to  remain  in 
force  for  three  months  only.1  So  one  feature  that  the  rec- 
ords reveal  periodically  is  a  re-enactment  of  former  laws.2 
The  administrative  and  legislative  activities  of  this  body 
of  men  are  the  chief  material  employed  in  the  treatment  of 
all  the  subsequent  chapters  of  this  work  and  do  not  call  for 
further  mention  at  this  point. 

The  common  council  was  empowered  further  by  the  char- 
ter to  impose  "  reasonable  Fines  and  Amercements  "  on 
offenders.3  "  Twenty  lashes  at  the  publick  whipping  post  " 
was  the  punishment  ordained  in  1692  in  case  a  slave  wras 
noisy  on  the  street  or  was  frequenting  a  public  house  on  the 
Sabbath,  but  his  master  might  hand  over  six  shillings  to 
"  Excuse  the  Same."  4  A  fine  of  three  shillings  was  estab- 
lished as  the  carman's  forfeiture,  if  to  secure  a  load  of 
dirt  he  dug  "  any  holes  in  the  Streets  "  or  "  without  this 
Citty  within  twenty  ffoot  of  the  ffbrtifications."  5  Property 
could  be  condemned  to  secure  the  payment  of  fines,  if  neces- 
sary.6 The  older  inhabitants  were  well  acquainted  with 
legislation  of  the  same  character  under  the  Dutch  burgo- 
masters and  schepens. 

What  constituted  a  quorum  ?  We  find  the  answer  in  this 
way.  The  charter  said  that  the  mayor,  recorder  and  any 
three  or  more  of  the  aldermen  plus  any  three  or  more  of  the 

1  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  298. 
*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  229,  243,  275,  3/7,  et  scq. 

3  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  298. 

4  .V.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  277.  rjlbid. 
6  Dongan  charter  in  .17.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  298. 


!7J  INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT  ^ 

assistants  shall  be  called  the  common  council ;  "  they  or  the 
Greater  part  of  them,"  however,  could  do  business.1  So 
five,  as  the  "  greater  part  "  of  eight,  made  a  quorum,  al- 
though not  entitled  to  be  called  the  "  common  council." 
Perhaps  it  was  with  scrupulous  exactness  that  in  Mayor 
French's  absence,  September  29,  1703,  the  clerk  wrote  "Att 
A  Meeting  of  the  Recorder,  Aldermen  and  Assistants,"  - 
instead  of  the  usual  "Att  A  Common  Council."  Again, 
on  January  19,  1698,  with  only  a  quorum  in  attendance  the 
record  starts,  "  Att  A  Meeting  of  ye  Mayor  &  Aldermen."  3 
How  important  the  duke-proprietor's  instructions  had 
been  in  the  matter  of  justice  at  an  earlier  time  we  shall  do 
well  to  learn  from  the  exact  words  of  the  Duke  of  York's 
secretary  to  Governor  Andros  under  date  of  August  31. 
1676: 

It  is  his  Royal  Highness  intencons  to  have  all  persons  what- 
soever treated  with  all  humanity  and  gentleness  that  can 
consist  with  the  honour  and  safety  of  your  government  to 
the  end,  that  where  the  laws  doe  inflict  a  punishment,  it  may 
seeme  rather  for  example  to  deterr  others  from  the  like 
crimes,  than  to  afflict  the  party  punished,  except  where  his 
malice  appeares  plainly  to  aggravate  his  offence.1 

Is  it  possible  that  James  Stuart  had  a  vision  of  "  humanity 
and  gentleness  "  across  the  sea  in  a  new  land,  in  contrast  to 
the  deeply  imbedded  inequalities  and  severities  of  the  home 
country  ? 

Instructions  of  the  sort  quoted  were  altogether  consonant 
with  Dutch  practices  and  could  mean  no  change  in  the  judi- 
cial spirit,  even  though  there  were  changes  in  names.  Gov- 
ernor Dongan  had  authorized  the  mayor,  with  any  four  of 

1  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  297. 

*M,  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  238.  3Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  25. 

4N.  Y.  Col.  Docs.,  vol.  iii,  p.  237. 


!8          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [jg 

the  six  aldermen,  sitting  as  a  court  of  sessions,  to  continue 
to  try  both  civil  and  criminal  cases. 

The  most  beneficial  features  of  the  Dutch  court  of  referring 
causes  to  arbitrators  was  continued  and  practiced  very  gen- 
erally until  English  lawyers  began  to  increase  in  the  colony, 
when  the  system  of  special  pleading  grew  more  refined  and 
subtle,  and  arbitrations  were  no  longer  resorted  to,  except  in 
cases  of  accounts,  which  were  usually  referred  to  three  per- 
sons, at  first  styled  arbitrators,  and  afterwards  referees.1 

The  English  jury  came  into  use  very  gradually  along  with 
the  pleading  of  the  attorneys,  though  this  procedure  did  not 
become  the  universal  practice  until  after  1704^ 

The  Dongan  charter  sought  to  organize  the  judiciary 
more  definitely  than  before,  the  appointment  of  a  recorder, 
heretofore  mentioned,  being  without  doubt  the  most  effec- 
tive means  to  that  end.  In  addition  there  was  an  attempt 
at  least  to  differentiate  between  civil  and  criminal  cases. 

The  Mayor  and  Recorder  of  ye  Said  Citty  for  ye  time  being 
And  three  or  More  of  ye  Aldermen  of  ye  Said  Citty,  not  ex- 
ceeding five,3  shall  be  Justices  &  Keepers  of  ye  Peace  ...  & 
May  for  ever  hereafter  have  Power  &  Authority  ...  to  hear 
&  Determine  all  Manner  of  Petty  Larcenyes,  Riotts,  Routs, 
Oppressions,  Extortions  and  other  trespasses  &  Offences  .  .  . 
And  ye  Correction  &  Punishment  of  ye  offences  Aforesaid  & 
every  Of  them  According  to  the  Laws  of  England  &  the  Laws 
of  the  said  Province.4 

Thus  reads  the  charter  in  one  place ;  at  another  place,  well  to- 
ward the  end  of  the  document,  we  find  "  that  they  And  their 
Sucsessors  Shall  And  may  have  hold  &  Keep ...  in  Every  week 
in  every  year  for  Ever  upon  Tuesday,  one  Court  of  Common 

'Daly,  C.  P.,  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Judicial  Tribunals  of  N.   Y., 
PP-  30-31.  2  Ibid.,  p.  29, 

3  This  is  a  curious  limitation  that  it  does  not  seem  easy  to  explain. 

4  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  299-300. 


I0,]  INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT  IOy 

Pleas  for  all  Actions  of  Debt,  Trespass  upon  ye  Case 
Detinue,  Ejectment  And  Other  Personal  Actions."  x  Civil 
cases,  plainly;  such  were  to  be  tried  like  the  others  before 
the  mayor,  recorder  and  aldermen  or  any  three  of  them, 
whereof  the  mayor  or  recorder  must  be  one.2 

The  colonial  assembly  had  passed,  November  i,  1683,  an 
act  providing  for  a  court  to  be  held  quarterly  in  the  county 
of  New  York  on  the  first  Tuesday  of  February,  May,  Au- 
gust, and  November.  At  these  sessions  the  judges  were  to 
be  the  justices  of  the  peace — "  three  of  them  at  the  least."  3 
The  minutes  of  that  court,  commencing  February  5,  1684, 
are  to  be  found  to-day  in  the  Criminal  Courts  Building,  in  a 
vellum-bound  volume  entitled  General  Sessions  of  the  Peace, 
held  for  the  City  and  County  of  New  York.  The  names  of 
the  city  magistrates  of  that  year,  headed  by  Mayor  Steen- 
wyck,  appear  on  the  first  page  as  the  justices  of  the  peace 
for  the  session.  Judge  Daly  in  his  treatise  on  the  New 
York  judiciary  states  that  this  tribunal,  "  with  the  general 
acquiescence  of  all  parties,"  yielded  place  to  the  correspond- 
ing court  established  by  the  Dongan  charter.  He  desig- 
nates the  same  as  "  the  quarter  sessions  "  and  ascribes  to  it 
"  exclusive  criminal  jurisdiction."  4  This  last  statement  is 
misleading,  however.  If  one  runs  through  the  minutes  of 
the  session  of  August,  1689,  for  instance,  he  will  find  the 
proving  of  a  will,  the  appraisement  of  an  estate,  the  report 
of  inquisitions  into  two  deaths  by  drowning,  and  the  sentenc- 
ing of  a  thief  to  the  whipping-post  recorded  in  succession.5 
Civil  cases  actually  outnumber  the  criminal.  One  can  dis- 

1  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C ',,  vol.  i,  p.  304. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  299.  304. 

*  Colonial  Laws  of  N.  Y.,  vol.  i,  pp.  125-6. 

4  Daly,  C.  P.,  Historical  Sketch   of  the  Judicial  Tribunals  of  X.    Y., 
PP-  33-34- 

5  General  Sessions  of  the  Peace,  vol.  i,  August,  1689. 


20          A'-EW7  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [2Q 

cern,  though,  from  the  many  suits  where  the  plaintiff  is 
"  Dom  Rex  "  (His  Majesty,  the  King)  that  cases  were  com- 
monly reserved  for  these  quarterly  sessions  in  which  the 
royal  authority  was  in  question.1  The  record  of  one  such 
case  is  given  in  the  appendix. 

The  minutes  of  the  court  of  burgomasters  and  schepens 
and  of  the  court  of  mayor  and  aldermen,  up  to  November 
10,  1674,  are  found  printed  in  "  The  Records  of  New  Am- 
sterdam." Manuscript  volumes,  commencing  with  the  court 
session  of  the  very  next  week,  are  in  the  custody  of  the 
county  clerk  and  record  the  proceedings  thereafter.2  One 
cannot  detect  any  appreciable  change  after  the  charter  was 
issued  either  in  the  nature  of  the  suits  or  in  the  method  of 
procedure.  Indeed  with  the  one  exception  already  noted,3 
the  minutes  of  this  court  are  remarkably  like  those  of  the 
quarterly  court.  Cases  involving  debt  predominate.  Inas- 
much as  the  magistrates  came  largely  from  the  merchant, 
and  therefore  the  creditor,  class,  the  court  minutes  reveal  the 
names  of  virtually  every  office  holder.  Almost  every  per- 
son of  note,  unless  he  were  a  Quaker,  appears  in  court  at  one 
time  or  another.  The  name  of  Jacob  Leisler  appears  more 
than  a  dozen  times  in  the  records  prior  to  1689.  Captain 
William  Kidd,  at  that  time  an  accredited  citizen,  appears 
nine  times  from  October  20,  1691,  to  July  4,  1693. 

As  appears  from  this  record,  the  debtor  often  owed  for 
"  strong  liquors ;  "  sometimes  wages  had  not  been  paid, 
cases  involving  sailors  and  masters  of  vessels  being  fre- 
quent ;4  sometimes  it  was  an  unpaid  note,  "  writing  obli- 

1  General  Sessions  of  the  Peace,  May  2,  1693. 

-  Minutes  of  the  Mayor's  Court,  commencing  with  vol.  ii.  When  the 
city  shall  have  completed  its  present  task  of  printing  the  common  coun- 
cil minutes,  1784-1831,  the  publication  of  these  court  minutes  should 
next  receive  consideration. 

3  "  Dom  Rex  "  as  plaintiff,  supra. 

4  The  master  of  the  "  Henry  &  Margarett "  was  sued  by  four  of  his 
"  marriners  "  on  the  same  date,  M.  C.  M.,  November  25,  1718. 


2i  ]  INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT  21 

gatory."  On  August  20,  1697,  suit  was  brought  to  satisfy 
London  creditors.1  The  cases  involving  John  Jourdain's 
lottery  in  1721  reveal  fraud  as  well  as  indebtedness.  Jour- 
dain  sought  to  dispose  of  certain  merchandise  "  by  way  of 
subscription,"  selling  tickets  to  subscribers  at  six  shillings 
each  and  advertising  231  prizes  ranging  from  eight  shillings 
to  fifteen  pounds.  Frederick  Williams  and  John  Blake  both 
brought  suit ;  the  latter  charged  that  he  bought  three  tickets, 
drew  a  £6  prize,  but  received  only  a  periwig  worth  five 
shillings.  Williams  said  he  took  out  twenty-four  tickets 
and  won  seven  prizes,  one  of  £14  and  six  of  eight  shillings 
each,  and  received  goods  worth  only  £6.  The  defence  of- 
fered was  that  Jourdain  was  "  within  the  age  of  one  and 
twenty."  The  court  awarded  equitable  damages  to  both 
subscribers.2  In  another  suit  Messrs.  Dugdale  and  Searle 
said  they  were  cheated  by  Thomas  Kearney  and  brought 
"  into  great  Discreditt."  Out  of  one  hundred  half-barrels 
of  flour  which  Kearney  delivered  to  them  as  "  good  and 
Merchantable  "  and  which  they  sold  at  Bridgetown,  Bar- 
bados as  such,  fifty-seven  were  found  to  be  "  bad  and  mixt 
flower."  The  sum  of  £20.  5.  \y2  was  what  Kearney  had 
to  pay  in  damages  and  costs.3 

Suits  for  scandal  or  defamation  of  character  were  fre- 
quent where,  according  to  the  complaint,  the  defendant  did 
"  with  a  loud  voice  "  utter  some  "  false  feigned  scandalous 
and  Defamatory  English  words."  Margaret  Norton's  sup- 
ply of  "  vile  and  opprobrious  "  epithets  was  limited,  com- 
paratively speaking,  but  she  was  called  upon  to  answer  two 
charges  in  court  on  the  same  day,  October  18,  1715.  Henry 
Pounteney  resented  being  called  by  her  "  That  old  French 
son  of  a  bitch,"  while  Zachariah  Hutchins  was  both  a 

1  Mayor's  Court  Minutes,  August  20,  1697. 

2 .!/.  C.  .I/.,  August  8  and  15,  1721.  "'Ibid.,  December  19,  1715. 


22          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [22 

"  privateer  dog  "  and  "  that  one-eyed  son  of  a  bitch."  Each 
man,  according  to  her  say,  had  stolen  one  of  her  bullocks 
and  "  kill'd  it  over  the  Ferry."  Found  guilty  on  both 
charges,  she  had  to  pay  £16  damages.1  Hendricke  Smith 
was  fined  five  shillings,  in  1693,  "  for  abusing  a  constable 
in  Collecting  their  Majesties  tax."  -  We  may  safely  as- 
sume that  this  "  abuse  "  was  from  a  venomous  tongue. 

There  were  also  many  cases  of  assault.  Hugh  Crow, 
victualler,  was  in  court,  July  4,  1704 — the  fourth  of  July  had 
no  particular  significance  then — charged  with  making  an 
assault  on  Mary  Wilson.  "  With  his  double  fist "  did  he 
beat  her,  "  so  that  of  her  life  it  \vas  despaired."  The  award 
by  the  jury  of  £10  damages  seems  lenient.3  On  April  3, 
1705,  a  complaint  was  entered  that  Joan  Atkins,  "with 
staves  swords  Clubbs  and  other  weapons  did  beat  wound  and 
evill  intreat  "  Isabelle  Maynard.  No  prosecution  followed.* 
For  the  loss  of  the  "  top  of  the  fourth  finger  of  the  Right 
hand  "  Richard  Johnson  received  £5  damages  from  John 
McEvers.5  John  Kramer,  carpenter,  was  ordered  com- 
mitted to  jail  "  till  he  finds  Sufficient  Sureties  for  his  good 
behaviour  and  for  his  Appearance  at  the  Next  Sessions,  he 
Attempting  to  Stab  his  wife  and  threatening  to  Murder 
her."  6 

There  was  a  thief  to  be  dealt  with  now  and  then.  Among 
the  things  that  John  Mitchell  did  "  take  and  Carry  away  " 
from  Jacob  Regnier's  house,  in  1711,  were  eight  gallons  each 
of  cider,  beer  and  Madeira  wine.7  Garrett  Wendell  was  in 
court  ten  years  later  for  the  theft  of  a  bag  of  money  and 
wearing  apparel  from  Christian  Ryck.  Damages  and  costs 

1  M.  C.  M.,  December  6,  1715.  -  Ibid.,  September  26,  1693. 

3  Ibid.,  July  4,  1704.  4  Ibid.,  April  3,  1705. 

5  Ibid.,  June  6,  1716.  6lb!J.,  April  23,  1723. 
7  Ibid.,  February  6,  i/n. 


23]  INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT  23 

in  this  case  amounted  to  £55.  10.  /-1  The  reader  needs  to  be 
oblivious  to  present  day  conditions  to  believe  that  "  in  a 
Certain  Street  Called  the  Broadway  "  Thomas  Braine  stole 
William  Butler's  milch  cow.2 

The  admission  of  freemen,  which  was  an  important  mat- 
ter of  municipal  business,  was  entrusted  by  the  charter  to 
the  "  Mayor,  Recorder,  &  Aldermen,  or  to  ye  Mayor  &  any 
three  or  more  of  ye  aldermen."  3  As  this  combination  of 
officials  approximated  to  the  membership  of  the  court, 
"  freedoms  "  are  generally  found  recorded  in  the  court  min- 
utes.4 An  exception  appears  in  the  case  of  eight  petitioners 
who  were  admitted  on  January  23,  i6g6,5  and  later  the 
common  council  as  much  as  confesses  irregularity,  when  it 
prescribed  that  no  more  freemen  should  be  admitted  except 
"  pursuant  to  the  directions  of  the  Charter."  6  Neverthe- 
less, irregularities  did  occur  thereafter.7 

Though  there  was  no  article  in  the  charter  concerning  the 
care  of  the  poor — an  interesting  omission — the  poor  are  with 
us  always,  in  court  and  council  records.  The  petitions  of 
individuals  for  assistance  are  found  more  frequently  in  the 
minutes  of  the  mayor's  court,  and  hundreds  of  such  appear 
from  1700  to  the  Revolution.  The  chapter  on  "  Charities 
and  Correction  "  will  open  this  subject  further  to  the  reader. 
This  was  also  a  court  where  foreigners  were  naturalized.8 

1  M.  C.  M.,  January  g,  1722. 

2  Ibid.,  October  2,  1722. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  302. 

4  M.  C.  M.,  March  29,  1709,  December  7,  1714,  March  29,  1715   (the 
list  includes  one  woman). 

5 .1/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  395- 

'  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  29.     See  chapter  on  ''  Trade  "  for  details  regarding 
freemen. 

7  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  243. 
S:U.  C.  M.,  July  21,  1719. 


24          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [24 

property  attached,1  wills  proved  and  recorded,2  guardians  ap- 
pointed for  minors,3  and  complaints  heard  concerning  al- 
leged unfair  taxes.4 

In  the  above  enumerations  we  have  aimed  to  include  only 
such  business  of  the  court  as  was  judicial  or  semi-judicial 
in  character.  Mention  has  already  been  made  5  of  this  body, 
when  sitting  as  a  court,  taking  cognizance  of  matters  that 
would  properly  come  within  its  purview  as  a  legislative  or 
administrative  board.  Such  irregularities  still  appear  after 
the  issue  of  the  charter,  but  not  with  such  frequency.  For 
example,  the  court  appointed  Jonas  Thomas  "  Corne  Meas- 
urer "  of  the  city  in  1694^  made  arrangements  for  the  tak- 
ing of  a  census  ~  and  collecting  "  Arrearage  of  Taxes  "  8  in 
1697,  took  action  to  provide  against  John  Le  Roux  com- 
municating with  the  French  when  he  went  to  Martha's  Vine- 
yard to  fish  in  1  695,°  and  granted  exclusive  use  of  a  pro- 
posed well  in  Broadway  to  those  who  should  contribute 
toward  the  same.10 

There  was  a  case  before  the  court  in  1713.  where  some 
witnesses  were  brought  from  New  Jersey,  and  the  court 
ordered  that  they  be  allowed  "  reasonable  Expenses  for  their 
Attendance  "  and  that  be  the  practice  in  the  future."  In  an- 
other case  in  the  same  year,  Thomas  Anderson  rs.  John 
Gordon,  we  have  the  first  instance  on  record  in  the  cit  of 


:  M.  C.  M.,  June  i,  1703.  ^Ibid.,  April  21,  1691. 

zlbid.,  February  23,  1703.  *Ibid.,  August  25,  1691. 

5  Cf.  supra,  p.  IT. 

fi  M.  C.  .!/,  July  3,  1694. 

'  Ibid.,  May  10,  1697.  s  Ibid..  July  27,  1697. 

g  Ibid.,  May  21,  1695. 

10  Ibid.,  May  31.  1720.     Cf.  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  149  for  a  similar  privi- 
lege granted  by  the  common  council. 

11  M.  C.  M.,  February  17,  1713. 


25]  INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT  25 

New  York  where  counsel  was  provided  for  one  of  the  parties 
who  was  too  poor  to  pay  for  such  service.1 

Jury  duty  in  those  days  was  no  more  popular  than  now ; 
a  penalty  of  thirteen  shillings  and  four  pence  z  was  exacted 
to  guard  against  absence,  but  it  had  to  be  imposed  many 
times.3  The  qualifications  of  a  juror  and  the  privilege 
of  challenge  were  established  by  provincial  law.1  Cases  of 
challenge  are  infrequent.  Cornelius  Clopper,  Jr.,  was  chal- 
lenged July  14,  1719,  but  was  declared  "a  fair  Tryer."  4 
A  jury,  "sworn  and  charged"  May  31,  1715,  had  great 
difficulty  in  reaching  an  agreement;  the  court,  after  an  ad- 
journment until  four  and  then  until  six  o'clock,  required 
three  constables  to  be  sworn  "  to  keep  the  same  Jury 
together."  5 

A  new  recorder,  Abraham  Gouverneur,  the  noted  Leisler- 
ian,  came  into  office  in  1700.  He  was  probably  instru- 
mental in  formulating  the  first  set  of  rules  for  the  court, 
and  these  were  ordered  to  be  in  force,  April  8,  1701.°  Any- 
one who  is  interested  could  find  much  in  our  civil  code  of 
to-day  that  is  traceable  to  this  code  of  1701.  We  shall 
make  reference  later  to  some  of  these  twenty-one  rules  in 
connection  with  the  duties  of  some  of  the  other  city  officials. 
The  business  of  the  court  had  increased  to  such  an  extent 
by  1711  that  it  was  ordered  that  the  signature  of  the  clerk, 
instead  of  the  mayor,  should  be  valid  except  for  writs  of 
attachment.7 

One  further  charter  provision,  judicial  in  character,  was 
that  designating  each  member  of  the  court  separately  as  a 

1  M.  C.  M.,  November  10,  1713. 

'Established  by  a  law  of   the  province.   Col.   Lai^s  of  X.    /'.,   May 
16,  1699. 

3 .!/.  C.  .V.,  June  13,  1699,  July  4,  1704,  November  24,  1719. 
4  Ibid.,  July  14,  1719.  5  Ibid.,  May  31,  1715. 

6  Ibid.,  April  8,  1701.  'Ibid..  January  _>3,  1711. 


26          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [26 

justice  of  the  peace,  who  by  his  warrant  might  commit  to 
jail  for  the  time  being  persons  apprehended  for  treason  or 
suspicion  thereof,  for  felony,  for  disturbing  the  peace,  or 
"  Other  offenders  for  other  Misdemeanors."  * 

We  now  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  mayor.  We 
already  know  something  of  the  burden  that  was  his  as  a 
member  of  the  court  and  the  common  council.  The  reader 
has  been  able  to  infer  that  he  was  an  appointee  of  the  gov- 
ernor and  in  no  sense  an  official  of  popular  choice.  In- 
deed the  election  of  an  executive  by  popular  vote  in  city, 
state,  or  nation  is  a  comparatively  modern  phenomenon. 
The  story  of  how  the  fathers  of  our  country,  in  1787  in 
convention  assembled,  established  the  electoral  college  to 
name  the  President  is  familiar  to  every  school  boy.  It  is 
probably  not  so  well  known  that  the  mayor  in  this  city,  with 
the  single  exception  of  Peter  Delanoy  in  1689  2  was  not 
chosen  by  the  popular  vote  of  its  citizens  until  i834.3 
During  four  years,  beginning  with  1669,  the  court  of 
mayor  and  aldermen  was  permitted  to  present  to  the  gov- 
ernor two  nominees  for  the  mayoralty,  one  of  whom  he 
should  designate.4  In  this  we  observe  the  survival  of  Dutch 
influence,  and  the  power  of  the  colonial  governor  was  not 
limited  to  such  an  extent  thereafter.  In  1683,  when 
"Antient  Customs  priviledges  &  lybertyes  "  were  petitioned 
for  by  the  corporation,  they  desired  the  governor  to  choose 
annually  for  mayor  one  of  the  newly  elected  aldermen.5 
This,  together  with  other  requests,  was  temporarily  granted.8 
Curiously  enough,  when  the  time  of  the  next  election  came 

1  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  301. 
*  -M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  206. 

3  Act  of  Assembly,  March  3,  1834. 

4  Rec.  -V.  Am.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  200-201,  260-61,  332,  394. 

3  -I/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  104.  G  Cf.  supra,  p.  14. 


27]  INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT  27 

around,  seven  nominees  were  submitted  to  Governor 
Dongan,  only  one  of  whom  was  an  alderman  elect.1  When 
the  charter  was  issued  it  was  found  that  no  such  democratic 
notion  was  to  be  further  entertained.  That  document  pro- 
vided that  the  governor,  "by  &  with  the  advice  of  his  Coun- 
cil," shall  appoint  "  Such  person  as  he  Shall  think  fitt." 

The  one  separate  power  conceded  to  the  mayor  by  the 
charter  was  that  of  granting  licenses  to  "  Tavern  Keepers, 
Inn  Keepers  Ordinary  Keepers  Victuallers  And  all  Publique 
Sellers  of  Wine  strong-waters  Syder  Bear  or  Any  other 
Sort  of  Liquors  by  retaile."  He  might  demand  for  each 
license  granted  a  sum  to  be  mutually  agreed  upon  by  the 
petitioner  and  himself,  not  to  exceed  thirty  shillings.3  In- 
stances of  the  mayor's  use  of  this  power  may  be  observed 
in  the  chapter  entitled  "  Trade."  4 

Incidentally  it  may  be  noted  that  the  money  accruing 
from  this  source  was  conceded  without  limitation  to  the 
corporation.  Shortly  after  the  charter  had  been  granted, 
the  magistrates  felt  that  the  Mayor  should  have  been  em- 
powered to  act  as  clerk  of  the  market,  water  bailiff,  and 
coroner.  At  their  request  the  recorder  drew  up  a  petition 
to  the  governor  for  the  same,5  but  it  was  not  until  the  time 
of  the  Montgomerie  charter  that  this  change  was  effected. 

Two  appointees  of  the  governor  other  than  the  recorder, 
whose  tenure  was  not  limited  by  the  charter,  were  the  town 
clerk  and  the  clerk  of  the  market.  The  charter  would  have 
them  be,  like  the  recorder,  "  Persons  of  Good  Capacity 
£  understanding."  6  Apparently  it  was  deemed  nnneces- 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  158-9. 

3  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  298. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  301.  *  Ch.  ii,  pp.  5.2-54. 

M/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i.  p.  313. 

r>  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  299. 


28          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [2g 

sary  to  specify  the  duties  of  these  officials  in  the  charter, 
except  that  John  West  was  designated  "  Present  Town 
Clerke,  &  Clerke  of  ye  Peace  &  Clerke  of  ye  Court  of 
Pleas."  *  One  reason  why  the  city  of  New  York  is  rich 
in  her  old  records  today  may  be  traceable  to  the  emphasis 
placed  on  their  care  in  Andros's  commission  to  this  same 
John  West  in  i68o,2  and  the  repetition  of  an  order  that  the 
clerk  make  an  inventory  of  "  the  Bookes  and  papers  Relat- 
ing to  the  Publique  business  and  Records  of  this  Citty  " 
and  "  bee  charged  with  them  by  Indenture  Signed  with  the 
Mayor  of  this  Citty  and  Duplicat  Signed  by  the  Clerq." 

An  interesting  item  in  the  minutes  of  the  common  coun- 
cil of  April  5,  1695,  refers  to  the  purchase  of  a  new  record 
book,  "  No.  21."  4  Twenty  folio  volumes  of  "  old  "  records 
evidenced  the  output  of  energy  on  the  part  of  Dutch  and 
English  secretaries  or  clerks  before  the  eighteenth  century 
commenced.  During  the  subsequent  thirty-five  years  the 
minutes  record  the  purchase  of  28  books  for  records.5  Six 
of  these  were  specified  as  for  the  mayor's  court.6  Some- 
times it  was  stated  that  they  were  "  bound  in  Vellum."  7 
They  cost  from  £2 :  10  s  to  £3  :  10  9  each.  The  handwriting 
of  William  Sharpas  becomes  very  familiar  to  any  one  perus- 
ing those  ancient  volumes,  as  he  served  as  clerk  continu- 
ously from  1692  until  his  death  in  1739.  Well  might  the 
common  council  express  itself  as  "  truly  Concern'd  "  over 

1  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  300. 

2M.  C.  M.,  November  8,  1680  (printed  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  viii,  pp.  146-7). 

3  A/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  221,  246. 

4  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  376. 

5M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  68,  84,  228,  272,  422;  vol.  iii,  pp.  95,  i/o,  183,  214, 
229,  268,  289,  301,  365-6,  481. 

6  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  84;  vol.  iii,  pp.  95,  183,  229,  365-6,  481. 

~  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  301. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  95.  9  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  289. 


20,]  INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT  29 

the  loss  of  one  who,  "  With  great  Integrity  Served  them 
Upwards  of  forty  Six  Years."  l  Mr.  Sharpas'  successor 
in  office  reported  to  the  common  council,  May  14,  1740,  an 
itemized  list  of  the  "  Books  papers  &c "  that  had  been 
handed  over  to  him  by  the  widow :  This  list  occupies  more 
than  two  closely  printed  pages.  To  satisfy  partially  the  read- 
er's curiosity,  here  is  the  first  paragraph  : 

Thirty  Six  Old  books  in  Dutch  of  Transports,  Notary  books, 
Resolution  Books  &c :  Some  With  paper  Covers,  Some  With- 
out and  Some  With  Parchment  Covers  Ten  Old  Books  of 
Records  of  the  Mayors  Court  Some  With  paper  Covers  and 
Some  With  parchment  Covers,  Book  of  Declarations  in  the 
year  1675  bound  in  parchment.  Book  of  Declarations  in  the 
year  1677  bound  in  parchment,  In  Which  Book  at  the  Other 
End  are  Recorded  Divers  Letters  of  Attorney,  Wills  Inven- 
tory's and  Other  Writings.  Book  of  Conveyances  Without  a 
Cover  begun  1665  and  Ending  1675  Pai"t  Dutch  and  part 
English.2 

As  in  the  case  of  the  town  clerk,  the  charter  failed  to 
prescribe  any  official  duties  for  the  clerk  of  the  market. 
Ways  in  which  this  officer  served  the  city  and  incidentally 
gained  much  revenue  are  revealed  in  that  portion  of  the 
chapter  on  "  Regulation  of  Commerce  and  Industry,"  deal- 
ing with  markets.3 

The  treasurer  or  chamberlain  was  appointed  annually 
by  the  common  council,  but  his  duties  also  were  left  un- 
defined by  the  charter.  It  is  interesting,  therefore,  to  find 
the  common  council  making  the  appointment  annually,  but 
failing  to  appreciate  the  need  of  regulating  the  office  care- 
fully until  1710.  when  much  disorder  of  the  "  City  Affairs 
and  Accts  .  .  .  which  hath  cost  the  Corporation  in  Law  Suits 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  479.  ~  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  485-8. 

::  Ch.  ii,  p.  60. 


20          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [30 

&c  .  .  .  upwards  of  £2000,"  led  a  committee  to  formulate 
rules  to  govern  the  office  in  the  future.  Among  other  things, 
the  treasurer  was  to  give  bond  for  £1000  and  keep  sepa- 
rate accounts  in  proper  books  for  that  purpose  of  the  several 
branches  of  the  city  revenue,  "Arising  by  the  Ferry  Dock 
Fines  Lycenses  Freedoms  Taxes  &c :"  so  that  "  the  Cor- 
poration may  at  all  times  know  what  is  due  and  to  Come  in 
and  when."  He  was  also  required  to  render  an  account, 
quarterly  or  oftener,  if  requested,  of  all  his  receipts  and! 
expenditures.1 

As  an  illustration  of  the  laxity  that  prevailed  before  these 
regulations  were  enacted,  we  find  the  common  council,  in 
1691,  much  concerned  over  the  accounts  of  a  former  treas- 
urer, the  charter  appointee,  Peter  Delanoy.  His  political 
opponents,  who  were  anti-Leislerians,  tried  to  find  out 
whether  he  gave  any  security  when  he  assumed  office.3 
They  could  not  find  that  his  accounts  were  ever  audited  dur- 
ing the  years  he  was  in  the  position.  Perhaps  he  did  not 
have  any  accounts  to  audit,  just  took  in  money  and  paid 
it  out  without  any  troublesome  bookkeeping.  He  was  popu- 
lar enough  to  have  been  allowed  to  hold  the  office  of  as- 
sistant alderman  while  he  was  yet  treasurer.3  Indeed,  dur- 
ing the  chaos  of  1689  he  was  the  freeholders'  choice  for 
mayor  and  confirmed  as  such  by  Leisler  in  his  assumed 
capacity  of  governor. 

With  Leisler's  fall,  it  was  a  completely  changed  muni- 
cipal government  that  began  to  "  Inspect  the  Revennues  "  in 
1691,  and  try  "particularly"  to  learn  about  Delanoy's  ac- 
counts,4 apparently  with  little  satisfaction.  After  his  death 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  400-402,  405-7. 

2 Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  227.  3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  191. 

4  The  extant  financial  records  of  the  city  commence  with  this  date, 
May  ii,  1691,  in  Ledger  No.  i,  Chamberlain's  office.  The  contents  are 
printed  in  7909  Collections  of  -V.  Y.  Historical  Society. 


3i  ]         INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT         3! 

his  widow  claimed  £170,  "  by  him  Disbursted  for  the  publick 
Benefit!."  1  A  search  for  accounts  to  audit  was  again  made 
by  four  different  committees,2  apparently  without  avail. 
Very  likely  it  was  the  widow  Delanoy,  rather  than  the  city, 
that  suffered  because  the  treasurer's  office  was  guarded  by 
no  rules.  It  is  very  doubtful  whether  a  city  treasurer  of 
those  days  ever  would  have  had  in  his  possession  enough 
municipal  wealth  to  tempt  him  to  abscond.  A  committee  ap- 
pointed to  audit  Treasurer  Bayard's  accounts,  in  1713,  re- 
ported that  they  showed  "  he  hath  paid  more  than  he  Re- 
ceived [by]  the  sum  of  five  pounds  Nine  Shilings  and 
Eleven  pence  half  penny."  3 

Another  official  designated  in  the  charter  was  the  coroner, 
"  to  be  Appointed  Chosen  and  Sworn  In  Manner  Hereafter 
Mentioned."  There  is  not  another  word  about  him,  how- 
ever, in  the  document,  and  references  to  such  an  official  are 
rare  in  the  municipal  records.  We  know  that  one  Thomas 
Coker  was  coroner  in  1689,  because  he  presented  an  account 
of  £5.  2.  6  which  was  "  allowed."  4  A  balance  due  him 
"  when  coroner  "  was  ordered  paid  in  i694.5  An  account 
of  Captain  Thomas  Clarke,  Coroner,  amounting  to  eleven 
pounds  two  shillings,  was  allowed  as  a  "  County  Charge," 
in  August  1 692.°  The  same  functionary  was  holding  that 
office  in  1698,  and  we  observe  a  curious  phase  of  the 
coroner's  activity  at  that  time  when  he  is  appointed  on  a 
committee  with  two  common  councilmen,  "  to  take  Effec- 
tuall  Care  the  Gaols  of  This  Citty  be  made  Strong  and 
Convenient  &  be  put  in  good  Repair."  7  Later  the  coroner 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  83.  2/&td.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  83,  99,  113,  139. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  52.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  205. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  3/0. 

6  General  Sessions  of  the  Peace,  vol.  i,  August,  1692. 
~  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  57. 


32  NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [32 

received  £4.  6.  7^/2  disbursed  by  him  to  that  end.1  We  may 
reasonably  assume  that  this  official  was  an  appointee  of  the 
governor,  because  in  their  petition  for  the  charter  the  magis- 
trates so  recommended;  and  also,  if  he  was  otherwise 
appointed,  his  name  would  surely  appear  in  the  records  as 
named  by  the  common  council  or  mayor.  Finally,  it  ap- 
pears in  1702  that  the  governor,  when  appointing  Philip 
French  mayor,  named  him  also  as  "  Coroner,  Clerke  of. 
the  Markett  &  Water  Bayliff."  2  This  would  surely  have 
met  with  remonstrance  if  it  had  taken  away  a  traditional 
privilege  of  the  corporation.  A  number  of  items  show  con- 
clusively that  the  mayor  shifted  to  the  sheriff  or  marshal 
the  usual  duties  of  the  coroner's  office.  In  1704  a  pay- 
ment to  Sheriff  Willson  includes  reimbursement  for  "  an 
Inquisition  on  A  dead  body."  In  1706  Marshal  Wright 
was  compensated  for  "A  Coffin  for  A  frozen  man." 

The  Sheriff,  like  the  mayor,  was  an  annual  appointee  of 
the  governor.  Grouping  this  officer  with  the  "  Town  Clerke 
of  ye  Peace,  High  Constable  Petty  Constables  &  all  other 
Subordinates,"  the  charter  required  them  to  attend  upon  the 
mayor,  recorder  and  aldermen,  "  as  Cause  Shall  require."  5 
What  "  the  cause  "  required  of  the  sheriff  at  times  the  reader 
will  have  a  chance  to  observe  in  the  chapter  on  "  The 
Watch."  6 

When  the  above-mentioned  rules  for  the  mayor's  court 
were  established,  in  1701,  the  sheriff  was  required  to  have 
a  regular  office  in  some  convenient  place,  where  he  or 
his  deputy  or  clerk  could  be  found  from  eight  to  twelve 
and  two  to  four  daily.  Another  requirement  was  that  he. 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  59.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  202. 

3 Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  255.  4 Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  309. 

5Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  300. 
6  Ch.  vi,  pp.  154  et  seq. 


33]  INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT  33 

together  with  the  clerk,  marshal  and  two  of  the  constables, 
should  "  attend  the  Mayor  att  his  house  in  the  Morning 
before  the  Courte  silts.'' 

The  petty  constables  and  the  high  constable  above- 
mentioned,  together  with  the  marshal  or  "  Sergeant  at 
Mace,"  conclude  the  list  of  officials  designated  by  the  charter. 
The  first  named  were  chosen  annually  "by  Majority  of 
Votes  "  in  their  respective  wards:2  the  second  was  appointed 
by  the  mayor; :!  while  the  marshal,  left  to  fate  by  the  char- 
ter, seems  to  have  been  named  by  the  mayor  "  with  the 
Advice  of  this  Court."  The  reader  is  again  referred  to 
the  chapter  on  ''  The  Watch  "  for  further  information  con- 
cerning the  activities  of  these  officials/' 

The  newly  appointed  mayor  and  sheriff  were  required  by 
the  charter  to  be  sworn  before  the  governor  and  council, 
on  the  fourteenth  of  October.  "The  Recorder,  Town  Clerke, 
Clerkes  of  ye  Markett.  Aldermen.  Assistants,  Chamberlaine, 
High  Constable.  Petty  Constables  And  all  other  officers  .  .  . 
shall  be  sworne  .  .  .  before  the  Mayor  or  any  three  or  More 
of  ye  Aldermen  for  ye  time  being."  6  At  first  there  seemed 
to  be  no  question  about  the  interpretation  of  this  last  clause. 
The  newly  appointed  mayor,  after  taking  oath,  met  with  the 
retiring  aldermen  and  swore  in  the  new  aldermen,  who  im- 
mediately "  tooke  their  Places."  The  new  assistants  and 
other  officers  then  took  the  oath.7  In  1701,  however,  there 
was  a  disputed  election  in  three  of  the  wards,  and,  at  the 
meeting  of  November  n,  three  aldermen  and  three  assist- 
ants claimed  their  seats  as  having  been  sworn  in  by  Ex- 

1  M.  C.  M.,  April  8,  1701. 

2  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  300.  *  Ibid. 

4  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iii,  p.  60.  5  Ch.  vi,  pp.  159-62,  167-8. 

6  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  299. 

7  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  182-3,  192,  288. 


34          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [34 

Mayor  De  Riemer.  Rival  claimants  for  these  six  positions 
presented  writs  of  mandamus  and  "  great  heats  Arose."  x 
Lieutenant  Governor  Nanfan,  who  succeeded  Lord  Bello- 
mont,  took  a  hand  in  settling  the  dispute,  but  was  forthwith 
informed  that  "the  Common  Council  of  this  Citty  are  the  sole 
Judges  of  the  due  Elections  and  Returns  of  the  Magistrates 
and  Other  Officers  for  this  Corporation."  2  After  con- 
siderable trouble  Mayor  Noell  got  the  election  returns  from 
the  three  wards  "  Inspected  and  scrutiny'd,"  3  and  in  the  end 
gave  the  oath  to  the  officials.4 

Nothing  was  said  in  the  Dongan  charter  about  the  com- 
pensation of  officials.  We  know  that  near  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century  the  mayor  was  receiving  fees  to  such  a 
large  amount  that  a  salary  was  established  instead.5  Small 
fees  for  the  use  of  his  seal  he  was  declared  entitled  to  as 
early  as  August  24,  1685,  when  the  common  council  ordered 
that  no  weights  or  measures  could  be  used  "  after  the  twen- 
tieth day  of  September  Next  Ensueing,  But  Such  as  shall  be 
Sealed."  Every  day  for  a  week,  commencing  August  31, 
from  nine  to  twelve,  the  mayor,  or  a  deputy,  was  to  "  give 
his  attendance  att  the  City  Hall  "  for  this  purpose.8  The 
clerk  of  the  market  was  generally  the  person  who  set  the 
seal  to  weights  and  measures,7  although  there  is  evidence 
that  the  mayor  received  the  fees  or  a  share  of  the  same.8 
When  the  mayor  used  his  seal  for  other  purposes,  the  com- 
mon council,  on  October  15,  1691,  fixed  the  fees  as  "  Six 
shill.  for  Every  great  Scale  and  three  Shillings  for  a  small 
Scale."  9  The  treasurer  was  allowed  "  I2d  in  the  pound  for 
all  Receipts  and  payments  of  the  publique  mony,"  com- 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  159.  *Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  151. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  167-178.  'Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  183. 

blbid.,  December  30,  1789.  '  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  167-8. 

7  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  245.  8/bu/.,  vol.  i,  p.  383. 
'  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  246. 


35]  INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT  35 

mencing  October  19,  1685. *  This  commission  system  was 
still  in  vogue  in  I774-2  Some  five  years  after  the  issue  of 
the  charter  the  clerk  of  the  market  was  granted  by  the  com- 
mon council  certain  definite  fees  for  cattle,  sheep  and  hogs 
slaughtered  for  the  market.3  In  1693,  salaries  were  being 
paid  to  the  marshal  and  to  the  clerk,  of  seven  and  ten  pounds 
respectively,4  and  commencing  in  1695  the  latter  received 
twice  as  much  because  of  his  "  Dilligence  "  and  the  "  Small 
Incouragement  he  has  by  the  Multitude  of  business  which 
he  does  ex  officio."  5 

The  fact  is  that  the  municipal  magistrates  in  the  early  days 
of  English  New  York  were  essentially  non-salaried.  In  this 
respect  the  unpaid  board  of  education  of  today  is  a  counter- 
part of  the  common  council  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The 
members  of  the  common  council  were  not  able  to  shift  re- 
sponsibility to  salaried  executives,  however,  and  the  demands 
on  their  time  were  many  and  insistent.  Committees  of 
their  members  were  appointed  to  investigate,  make  reports, 
and  carry  on  all  sorts  of  municipal  business.  Regulations 
had  to  be  drawn  up  concerning  the  dock,  the  ferries,  the 
watch;  wharves,  ferry  houses,  market  houses,  sewers,  and 
the  like,  had  to  be  built  and  repaired;  lands  had  to  be  sur- 
veyed, titles  to  land  inspected,  encroachments  on  highways 
investigated;  addresses  to  his  majesty  had  to  be  prepared 
setting  forth  "  A  true  and  Perfect  Representation  of 
what  have  been  ye  Rights  &  Privileges  of  this  City  "  and 
protesting  against  the  repeal  of  the  "  Bolting  Act."  8  In 
1700  Kings  Bridge  could  not  be  reached  in  an  hour  by  a 
subway  train  from  the  Battery;  it  must  have  taken  two 
whole  days  for  a  committee  of  four  to  go  there  and  "  View 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  171.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  viii,  p.  23. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  218.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  322. 

trf.,  vol.  i,  p.  385.  «  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  7-9. 


36          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [36 

the  place  On  which  Jasper  Nessepot  intends  to  build  a  Mill  " 
and  report  to  the  board  whether  the  passage  of  boats  and 
sloops  around  the  island  will  be  hindered  thereby.1  Almost 
equally  important  in  those  days,  although  not  consuming  so 
much  time,  would  be  "  Lineing  and  making  Decent  the  Pew 
assigned  for  the  Mayor  and  Magistrates  in  Trinity 
Church."  Certainly  it  called  for  much  sacrifice  to  enter 
upon  aldermanic  duties  in  those  days.  Yet  the  board  went 
so  far  as  to  penalize  members  for  tardiness  or  absence  at 
the  meetings,3  and  any  one  elected  to  office  who  refused  to 
serve  was  heavily  fined.4 

It  seems  apparent  that  offices  were  not  sought  for  financial 
gain.  To  be  sure  it  was  not  considered  inappropriate  for 
a  magistrate  to  undertake  some  work,  like  repairs  to  the 
City  Hall  or  the  dock,  for  which  he  would  be  reimbursed. 
It  is  more  than  probable  that  an  official  could  assist  some 
friend  in  connection  with  the  purchase  of  a  desirable  water 
lot  or  an  extension  of  land  to  low  water  mark.  The  rec- 
ords, however,  prior  to  1731,  show  no  glaring  evidence  of 
the  graft  methods  associated  with  later  municipal  history. 

Our  consideration  of  the  Dongan  charter  cannot  be 
thought  complete  untess  we  summarize  the  opportunities  for 
revenue  that  it  confirmed  or  offered. 

The  early  pages  of  the  charter  confirmed  to  the  corpor- 
ation "  all  the  profitts,  benefitts  and  Advantages  \vhich  Shall 
or  may  accrue,  and  arise  att  all  times  hereafter  "  from  the 
dock,  ferry,  market  houses,  city  hall,  or  "  New  Buryal 
place."  5  The  language  of  the  document  made  it  clear  that 
the  corporation  had  invested  public  funds  in  such  improve- 
ments and  was  entitled  to  any  revenue  that  might  be  forth- 
coming. 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  97-  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  337. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  n.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  157. 

&  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  292-3. 


37]  INTRODUCTORY—GOVERNMENT  37 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  document  all  money  received  by 
the  mayor  from  licenses  granted  to  ''  Tavern  Keepers,  Inn 
Keepers,  Ordinary  Keepers  Victuallers  And  All  Publique 
Sellers  of  Wine  strong  waters  Syder  Bear  or  Any  other 
Sort  of  Liquors  by  retaile  "  was  confirmed  to  the  corpor- 
ation; this,  too,  "  without  Any  Account  thereof  to  be  ren- 
dered Made  or  Done  to  any  of  ye  Lieutenants  or  Governors 
of  this  Province."  *  A  former  source  of  revenue  also  re- 
established was  that  "  Used  &  accustomed  to  be  paid  &  re- 
ceived "  by  those  admitted  as  freemen.* 

The  story  o>f  the  collection,  and  the  obstacles  in  the  way 
of  the  collection,  of  revenue  from  the  above  mentioned 
sources  both  before  and  after  the  issuance  of  the  charter  is 
detailed  in  subsequent  chapters.3 

Two  new  possibilities  for  revenue  were  created  by  the 
charter,  one  of  which  yielded  a  great  deal,  and  the  other, 
nothing  whatever.  The  first  was  the  grant  of  "All  the 
Waste,  Vacant,  unpattented,  and  Vnappropriated  Lands  "  on 
the  island  reaching  to>  low  water  mark.4  Further,  the  cor- 
poration could  fill  in  and  make  land  "  In  And  About  "  the 
island  to  low  water  mark  r>  and  all  such  lands,  "  made  "  or 
natural,  the  city  was  empowered  "  to  Demise,  Grant,  Lease, 
Sett  over,  Assign  And  Dispose  of  "  at  pleasure." 

The  reader  is  referred  to  a  subsequent  chapter  7  for  acts 
of  the  common  council  that  resulted  from  this  chartered 
privilege. 

1  Dongan  charter  in  >/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  301-2. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  303. 

3  Chaps,  ii,  iv,  and  v.     Also   for  the  Dutch  city  see  Durand,  E.  D., 
The  City  Chest  of  A>ty  Amsterdam,  in  the  first  series  of   The  Half 
Moon  Papers. 

4  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  293. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  304.  "Ibid.,  vcl.  i.  p.  303. 

"  Ch.  iii,  pp.  82-88.  Also  cf.  Black.  G.  A.,  Municipal  Ownership  of 
Land  on  Manhattan  Island. 


38          Ar£W7  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [38 

The  other  possibility,  the  one  which  proved  non-produc- 
tive, was  that  of  "  the  Royalties  of  fishing,  fowling,  Hunt- 
ing, Hawking  "  and  minerals  with  the  exception  of  gold  and 
silver.1  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  corporation  ever 
sought  any  revenue  or  advantage  by  restrictions  on  the  in- 
habitants along  the  lines  cited  above.  At  the  same  time  it 
was  an  assurance  against  alien  usurpation. 

Certainly  that  must  have  been  an  interesting  period  for 
the  Manhattan  property  owner  when  he  was  not  subject  to 
an  annual  assessment  and  tax  on  his  possessions.  Occa- 
sional taxation  of  this  sort  there  was,  commencing  with 
that  "  voluntary  contribution  "  of  i655,2  but  after  1691  it 
was  necessary  for  the  corporation  to  apply  to  the  newly 
created  provincial  assembly  when  such  was  deemed  neces- 
sary. Aside  from  such  occasional  revenue,  the  income 
from  the  lease  of  the  ferry  was  the  largest  item  in  the 
city's  annual  credit  column  for  years.  In  1691  an  offer 
of  £100  annually  for  the  Long  Island  ferry  privilege  was 
rejected  by  the  common  council  as  being  too  small,3  and 
in  1728  the  same  ferry  yielded  £258.*  The  reader  is  re- 
ferred to  the  chapter  entitled  "  Ferries  "  for  details  in  re- 
gard to  the  ferry  leases  and  to  the  corporation's  method  of 
obtaining  ready  money  by  mortgaging  this  same  ferry 
revenue.5 

At  the  time  of  the  issuance  of  the  Montgomerie  charter 
the  average  annual  budget  of  the  municipality  was  less  than 
£600. 

At  the  opening  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  City  of  New 
York  existed  under  a  government  such  as  has  been  described. 


charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  294. 
zRec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  i,  pp.  367-375. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  252.  *3f.  C.  C.,  vol.  iii,  p.  430. 

5  Ch.  v,  pp.  126  et  seq.,  128  (especially). 


39]  INTRODUCTORY— GOVERNMENT  39 

During  the  administration  of  Governor  Lord  Cornbury  a 
question  of  municipal  ferry  rights  arose.  This  grew  out 
of  the  increasing  trade  with  Long  Island,  which  resulted 
in  the  issue,  on  April  19,  1708,  of  the  so-called  "  Cornbury 
Charter."  The  circumstances  of  this  grant  are  considered 
fully  in  the  chapter  on  "  Ferries."  x  Suffice  it  to  say  here, 
that  the  existing  government  was  in  no  way  affected  by  this 
charter,  except  so  far  as  the  corporation  had  the  problem 
before  it  of  "  defraying  the  Charge  "  of  £300 2  therefor  at 
a  time  when  the  treasury  was  empty. 

Incidentally,  however,  the  Cornbury  charter  furnishes 
information  that  helps  us  to  a  fuller  knowledge  of  the 
public  works  of  that  period.  The  Dongan  charter  had  re- 
ferred to  a  number  of  public  works  erected  by  the  citizens 
"  att  their  own  proper  Costs  and  Charges."  3  The  Corn- 
bury  charter  states  that  since  the  time  of  the  previous  grant 
— something  over  twenty  years — additional  public  works 
had  been  completed.  These  were  the  new  city  hall,  five 
market-houses,  a  crane  and  a  new  bridge,4  a  powder-house, 
and  the  new  ferry-houses  on  the  island  of  Nassau,  with  a 
barn,  stables  and  a  pound  for  cattle.0 

The  reader  of  this  introductory  chapter  is  able  to  infer 
that  the  subsequent  chapters  will  take  up  in  turn  the  super- 
vision and  regulation  of  the  various  municipal  activities  of 
that  early  period. 

1  Ch.  v,  pp.  138-41. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  351-2. 

s  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  291. 

4  Ch.  iv,  pp.  116-17. 

%  Kent,  James,  Charier  of  the  City  of  New  York.  p.  26. 


CHAPTER  II 
REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY 

WHATEVER  the  motive,  or  mixture  of  motives,  that  led 
Europeans  to  settle  at  other  places  on  our  Atlantic  coast, 
no  one  questions  that  trade  inspired  the  settlement  of  Man- 
hattan Island.  It  was  trade  with  the  Indians  that  resulted 
in  the  purchase  of  the  island  in  1626.  Traders  dominated 
the  politics  of  the  infant  city  of  New  Amsterdam  and  con- 
tinued to  guide  the  affairs  of  the  English  city  later  on. 
Surely  trade  continues  to  be  the  dominant  note  in  the  Greater 
New  York  of  the  twentieth  century.  Look  at  the  city  seal, 
so  familiar,  yet  so  little  understood.  Note  the  beaver,  em- 
blematic of  the  trade  in  furs  which  the  Dutch  carried  on. 
The  ship  "Arms  of  Amsterdam  "  on  its  homeward  journey 
in  November,  1626,  carried  7246  beaver  skins,  as  well  as  a 
considerable  number  of  mink,  otter  and  wildcat  pelts,  and 
some  oak  and  hickory  timber.1  With  this  extensive  early 
trade  in  beaver  skins  it  was  natural  that  they,  like  tobacco 
in  the  Virginia  colony,  should  be  also  a  medium  of  reckon- 
ing values.  Another  medium  of  exchange  in  the  early  days 
was  wampum,  frequently  called  seawant,  strings  of  beads 
on  wire  that  the  Indians  were  glad  to  get  in  exchange  for  the 
beaver  skins  and  other  furs.  If  the  beads  of  wampum  were 
unperforated  or  became  loose,  they  were  not  considered 
'"  good  pay."  and  a  distinction  was  made  between  merchant- 
able or  trade  wampum  and  badly  strung  wampum.  For 
example,  an  ordinance  of  May  30,  1650,  makes  the  former 

^V.  Y.  Col  Dots.,  vol.  i,  pp.  37-38. 
40  [40 


REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         4i 

pass  "  at  the  rate  of  six  white  or  three  black  beads  for  one 
stiver,"  and  the  latter  "  at  the  rate  of  eight  white  or  four 
black  for  one  stiver."  The  director  general  and  council 
ruled  in  1658  that  payments  in  wampum  above  a  certain 
sum  ~  should  not  be  valid  in  law  "  unless  a  written  agree- 
ment or  acknowledgment  of  the  parties  convince  the 
judge."  Then  there  were  the  silver  coins  of  the  Father- 
land, the  stiver  (two  cents),  the  guilder,  carolus  guilder,  or 
florin  (forty  cents)  ;  hence  there  was  always  need  in  con- 
tracts to  specify  the  kind  of  currency.  Just  as  old  Amster- 
dam in  the  sixteenth  century  gathered  into  its  coffers  coins 
of  all  descriptions  and  made  a  business  of  regulating  values, 
so  New  Amsterdam  went  through  a  similar  experience  and 
the  complexity  increased  with  English  occupation  and  the 
entrance  into  the  harbor  of  ships  flying  every  known  flag. 
Along  with  payment  in  the  previously  mentioned  Indian 
wampum  and  Dutch  stivers,  guilders  and  florins,  and  those 
in  English  pence,  shillings,  and  pounds  sterling,  we  read  of 
pounds  Flemish,  current  money  of  Curagoa,  Boston  cur- 
rency, Spanish  pieces  of  eight  (in  whole  and  half  pieces) 
double  doubloons,  pistoles  and  half  pistoles,  reals  and  half 
reals.4 

Reverting  again  to  the  seal,  we  note  the  arms  of  a  wind- 
mill and  the  barrels.  These  symbolize  the  municipal  privi- 
lege or  monopoly  of  making  and  packing  flour  for  exporta- 
tion that  was  granted  by  Governor  Andros  in  i68o.r>  This 
was  an  industrial  opportunity  by  which  the  city  profited  re- 
markably. In  colonial  New  York  there  would  have  been 

1  Records  of  \'ew  Amsterdam,  vol.  i,  p.  16. 

2  The  sum  was  twenty  florins  (about  $8  in  our  money). 
•"•  Rcc.  N.  Am.,  vol.  i,  p.  41. 

*(For  many  of  these  terms  see  Mayor's  L'mtri  Minutes,  September  30, 
1707,  Pearsall  r.-r.  Hamilton. 
Mf.  C.  C..  vol.  i,  p.  So. 


42          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [42 

no  such  question  about  the  size  and  cost  of  a  loaf  of  bread 
as  aroused  so  much  controversy  in  191 5. x  These  were  mat- 
ters of  municipal  regulation  even  in  the  early  years  of  the 
Dutch  city,  and  there  is  on  record  an  interesting  petition  of 
the  city  bakers  to  the  burgomasters  and  schepens,  under  the 
date  of  April  18,  1659,  as  follows : 

We  ....  represent  ....  whereas  the  wheat  is  at  present 
become  very  dear,  the  skepel  of  wheat  not  being  to  be  bought 
from  the  sellers  under  four  guilders  in  beavers  ....  that 
your  Honors  would  be  pleased  to  fix  another  and  a  higher 

value  on  the  bread Tis  notorious  and  known  that 

those  of  Fort  Orange  where  the  grain  is  easier  to  be  had  and 
more  abundant  sell  the  loaf  of  8  Ibs.  for  20  stivers  each.  The 
expense  of  bringing  400  skepels  to  the  mill  .  .  .  must  pay  for 
freight  thereof  fl.  120  and  fl.  120  for  the  mill  toll  and  besides 
this  40  fl.  for  bringing  it  up  and  down;  being  in  all  280  fl.  in 
expences  ....  pledging  themselves  to  use  all  possible  dili- 
gence to  provide  your  Honors  and  the  Burghers  with  bread.2 

No  ordinance  occurs  with  more  frequency  in  the  Common 
Council  Minutes  than  the  "Assize  of  bread."  One  of  the 
earliest  of  these  bears  the  date  of  October  17,  1677,  and 
reads  as  follows : 

Whereas  it  hath  Pleased  God  of  his  infinite  mercy  and  good- 
ness this  last  Yeare  to  Send  a  good  and  Plentifull  Crop  of 
graine  in  this  Colony  as  well  as  other  Islands  and  Plantacons 
Adjacent  which  wee  pray  may  be  continued  and  that  the  Poor 
may  Reape  the  benefit  thereof  and  have  Bread  at  Reasonable 
Rates  It  is  hereby  ORDERED  that  Bakers  within  the  Citty  & 
the  Liberties  thereof  Shall  Sell  bread  at  ye  Severall  Rates  and 
prizes  followeing  upon  Paine  not  onely  of  Loosing  all  such 
bread  as  shal  be  made  and  found  in  their  Shops  or  put  to  sayle 

lNew  York  Times,  February  10,  1915. 
2  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  219-20. 


43]       REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         43 

but  be  Liable  to  such  former  orders  as  have  been  made  in  this 
Case.1 

Then  follow  nine  loaves  of  varying  quality  and  weights,  with 
the  prices  in  stivers  attached. 

In  ordinary  seasons  the  price  of  wheat  was  three  shillings 
a  bushel;  the  usual  price  of  a  white  loaf  was  one  and  one- 
half  pence  and  the  weight  of  the  same  varied  from  twelve 
to  sixteen  ounces,  with  the  price  of  wheat.  All  bakers  were 
required  to  bake  all  the  kinds  specified  in  the  assize.  One 
can  easily  imagine  times  when  the  margin  of  profit  under  a 
given  assize  would  be  so  small  that  bakers  would  be  "  all 
sold  out  "  very  quickly.  This  may  explain  an  order  of  the 
common  council,  of  January  21,  1686,  specifying  days  on 
which  given  bakers  must  "  bake  Each  one  batch  of  white 
and  Course  bread  at  Least." 

Bakers  then,  as  well  as  now,  were  tempted  not  to  give 
full  weight.  In  the  minutes  of  October  23,  1685,  we  read 
that  Jacob  Decay  (De  Kay) .  Reiner  Willimson  and  Anthony 
Demilt,  themselves  bakers  "Approved  by  the  Rest  of  the 
bakers,"  were  appointed  by  the  common  council  as  "  Super- 
visors of  Bread."  They  took  oath  that  they  would,  when 
required,  "  give  their  Judgement  [upon]  the  view  of  any 
bread  to  be  baked  within  this  Citty  Whether  the  same  be 
according  to  the  Standard  of  this  Citty  or  noe."  The  same 
three  men  were  further  ordered  to  bring  in  a  list  of  bakers, 
"  Necessary  and  fitt  for  that  imployment."  4  Sometimes, 
too,  a  baker  was  tempted  to  sell  bread  that  was  stale  or 
poorly  baked.  David  Provost,  who  was  later  an  assessor 
in  the  Dock  Ward  •"'  and  whose  son  was  mayor  in  1699. 8  was 

lAf.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  65.  'Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  1/6. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  172. 

*  Ibid. 

M/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  366-  «Iiid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  90. 


YORK  L\  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [44 

brought  before  the  mayor's  court  at  one  lime  "  tor  having 
bad  breed  not  fitt  for  Sale."  The  court  let  him  off,  caution- 
ing him  to  be  careful  in  the  future.1 

That  creature  sometimes  pictured  with  horns  and  cloven 
feet  must  have  whispered  into  the  ear  of  the  shipper  of 
flour  that  his  profit  would  be  materially  increased  if  he  made 
his  barrels  a  trifle  smaller.  So,  as  early  as  March  6,  1675, 
we  read  of  "  the  confirmation  of  Mr.  Christopher  Hoghland 
in  the  office  of  Surveyor  and  Brander  of  Bread  and  flower."2 
At  a  later  date  (July  4,  1692)  a  committee  of  six  citizens 
was  ordered  to  agree  upon  a  definite  size  for  "  Hogdsheads 
&  Tierces  for  Biskett  and  Pease,  whole  and  halfe  Barrells 
for  Flower."  :;  And  at  the  same  session  of  the  court  three 
shippers,  John  Vandespregel,  John  Hardenburgh,  and  John 
Clapper,  pleaded  guilty  to  the  charge  of  "  Marking  False 
Teare  upon  Caske  of  Flower  Bread  Pease  &c,  for  Trans- 
portation." They  were  fined  twelve  shillings  each.4  Even 
the  farmer  who  produced  the  corn  for  the  miller  to  grind 
and  the  shipper  to  pack  had  to  be  watched  to  see  that  he 
did  not  fill  his  measure  partly  with  dirt  or  chaff.  This  we 
may  know  from  the  common  council  ordinance  of  May  31, 
1684:  "  Ordered  that  Mr.  Alderman  Bayard  and  Mr.  Jacobs 
Doe  Draw  up  Orders  that  Corne  may  be  well  Cleaned  before 
Sent  to  the  Mill  and  Present  the  Same  next  meeting."  '"' 

It  was  at  this  same  time  that  Governor  Dongan  issued  his 
proclamation,  that  for  the  future  "  noe  flower  be  1  jolted  or 
Packed  nor  Breade  made  for  Transportation  in  Any  Place 
whatsoever  within  this  Government  Except  in  the  Citty  of 
New-Yorke."  u  This  but  confirmed  the  privilege  granted  by 

1  Mayor's  Court  Minutes,  January  25,  1681. 
-  Ibid.,  March  6,  1675.  3  Ibid.,  July  4,  1693. 

4  Ibid.,  July  4,  1693.  5.U.  C.  C.,  vol.  i.  n.  I5-. 

'  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  pp.  15^-3. 


45]        REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         45 

Governor  An  tiros  four  years  previously,1  a  privilege  which 
the  records  show  has  always  been  jealously  guarded.  In  the 
spring  of  1683,  rumors  reached  the  ears  of  the  city  magis- 
trates that  in  defiance  of  the  law,  flour  for  sale  and  trans- 
portation was  being  imported  daily  into  the  city.  Warrants 
were  issued  at  once  to  the  sheriff  "  to  Seize  all  such  flower 
as  shall  be  bolted  and  packed  in  any  Other  Place  and  Braught 
or  Imported  into  this  Citty  whether  on  Board  any  Vessell 
or  Landed."  Scarcely  a  week  had  passed  before  the  deputy 
marshal,  Benjamin  Collier,  reported  to  the  mayor's  court 
that  ''one  hundred  forty  barrels  and  16  halfe  barrels  of 
flower  had  been  Seized  from  on  board  the  Brigantine  Hope- 
well  John  Schouton  master."  The  jury  found  this  flour 
to  have  been  brought  from  Albany  "  without  ye  Libertys 
and  Precincts  of  this  Citty  " :  it  was  declared  forfeited  to 
the  city. 

The  sloop  Mary  was  also  found  to  have  on  board  ten 
barrels  and  eight  half  barrels  of  flour,  this  too  from  Albany; 
this  was  likewise  condemned.  Even  Colonel  Lewis  Morris, 
destined  later  to  become  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  province,  was  an  offender.  Eleven  barrels  and  three 
half-barrels  which  were  found  to  have  been  "  brought  from 
his  Plantacon  against  Haerlem  "  were  condemned."  Two 
days  later  all  these  forfeitures  were  remitted,  the  owners 
having  pleaded  ignorance  of  the  laws  and  having  given  as- 
surance that  no  "contempt  or  slight  of  Authority"  was 
intended.4 

From  the  earliest  times  the  magistrates  of  the  city  pro- 
tected diligently  its  local  tradesmen.  Rarely  do  we  have  in 
these  days  a  distinguished  visitor  who  is  not  granted  the 
"  freedom  of  the  city  "  when  he  is  welcomed  by  the  mayor. 

1  M.  C.  C..  vol.  i,  p.  80.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  pp.  04-6. 

Mf.  C.  M..  May  T,  1683.  *Ibid..  May  3,  1683. 


46          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [46 

This  freedom,  in  the  infant  city  was  indispensable  for  a 
shopkeeper  or  "  Handi  Craft  man,"  and  in  1675  it  cost  the 
former  six  beavers  and  the  latter,  two  beavers,  "  Unless  by 
Speciall  order  of  Court."  The  cost,  in  1691,  in  English 
money  was  £3  123  for  the  former  and  £i  45  for  the  latter, 
plus  the  fee  the  mayor  might  claim.1 

This  was  not  a  new  idea  introduced  by  the  English, 
however,  for  it  corresponded  to  the  burgher  right  of  the 
Dutch  city.  Note  this  warning  of  the  schout  and  burgo- 
masters under  date  of  March  29,  1657:  "  No  one  can  sell 
in  this  City  by  ell,2  measure  or  weight,  or  do  any  other 
business  unless  he  have  received  the  Burgher-right  of  this 
City,  and  have  his  ell,  measure  or  weight  stamped ;  and  who- 
soever is  inclined  so  to  do  shall  have  to  apply,  to  receive  their 
Burgher  right,  to  the  Presiding  Burgomaster  Allard 
Anthony,  and  for  the  stamping  their  ell,  measure  and  weight 
shall  apply  at  the  City  Hall  of  this  City  on  the  afternoon  of 
Saturday  from  two  to  four  o'clock."  In  receiving  the 
right  the  burgher  had  to  take  oath  to  show  respect  and  rever- 
ence to  the  present  and  all  future  burgomasters  and  "  to 
obey  them  in  all  honest  and  just  matters  "  so  long  as  he 
should  continue  in  the  province.4 

The  city  fathers  were  also  on  the  watch  for  itinerant  trad- 
ers who  might  enter  the  harbor  with  their  ships  and  try  to  do 
some  business  here,  and  up  the  river,  with  no  idea  of  settling 
permanently.  Certain  Scotch  traders  are  particularly  men- 
tioned. By  an  ordinance  of  March  9,  1660,  they  must  have 
obtained  the  burgher  right  and  kept  an  open  shop  within 
the  city  before  they  could  go  on  with  their  merchandise  to 
Fort  Orange  or  elsewhere  in  New  Netherland.5  This  ordin- 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  222.  2E11— 2  ft.  linear  measure. 

3  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  147-8. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  154.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  143. 


47]       REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         47 

ance  was  strengthened  by  resolutions  of  the  governor  and 
council  about  two  months  later,  when  they  fixed  the  time  at 
six  weeks  during  which  the  merchant  must  keep  an  open 
shop  within  the  city  before  trading  elsewhere.1  Yet  another 
ordinance  some  months  later  (February  25,  1661)  provided 
that  an  absence  from  the  city  for  four  consecutive  months, 
"  without  holding  fire  and  light  here,"  carried  with  it  a  for- 
feiture of  burgher  right.  However,  burghers  who  had  re- 
sided and  maintained  an  open  store  for  six  consecutive 
weeks  "  might  trade  elsewhere  on  the  payment  of  20  guild- 
ers "  over  and  above  their  burgher-Right." 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  burgher  right  carried  with 
it  protection  against  having  one's  goods  attached  by  any 
stranger  or  even  another  burgher,  a  custom  that  came  from 
old  Amsterdam.  The  court  of  burgomasters  and  schepens 
ruled  such  an  attachment  illegal,  in  May  i656.3 

Trade  in  liquors  then  as  now  required  special  licenses 
and  occasioned  no  end  of  trouble.  In  the  year  following 
the  chartering  of  the  city  the  governor  and  council  consented 
to  a  burgher  excise  on  liquors  consumed  within  the  city.4 
So  the  burgomasters  and  schepens  proceeded  to  provide  re- 
venue for  the  city's  treasury  by  levying  a  tax  as  follows : 
for  every  tun  5  of  good  beer  sold  within  the  city,  the  govern- 
ment was  to  receive  20  stivers;  for  each  half  barrel,  10 
stivers ;  for  one  anker  or  quarter,  5 ;  for  each  tun  of  small 
beer,  6;  for  each  half  barrel,  3;  for  each  anker,  2;  for 
each  anker  of  brandy,  Spanish  wine  or  distilled  waters,  30; 
and  of  French  wines,  half  as  much.8 

And  they  proceeded  to  regulate  matters  very  thoroughly. 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  256-7.  3  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  270-1. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  98-9.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  169. 

6  Tun  =  liquid  measure  of  about  250  gallons. 
8  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  i,  p.  17. 


48          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [48 

Burghers  or  tapsters  or  tavern  keepers  who  wished  to  lay 
in  or  export  any  beer  or  wine  had  to  pay  therefor  the  proper 
excise  to  an  official  named  as  '*  Receiver."  Two  men  were 
appointed  as  wine  and  beer  porters ;  they  alone  had  the  right 
of  handling,  opening  or  moving  from  one  storehouse,  cellar 
or  brewery  to  another  any  wine  or  beer;  they  alone  could 
bring  any  beer  from  outside  into  the  city,  "  under  forfeiture 
of  the  wines  and  beers  and  arbitrary  correction  at  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  Court."  Furthermore,  the  schout  was  au- 
thorized to  inspect,  with  two  members  of  the  court,  as  often 
as  he  deemed  necessary  the  cellars  of  the  tapsters  and  to  gauge 
all  the  barrels.  He  might  seize  all  wines  and  beers  not  re- 
ported or  for  which  no  excise  had  been  paid.1 

In  1656  a  "  Fanner "  of  the  burgher  excise  on  wine 
and  beer  -  took  the  place  of  the  "  Receiver.''  This  position 
was  first  awarded  to  Paulus  von  der  Beeck,  who  bid  4220 
Carolus  guilders"  for  it,  for  the  year  ending  November  i, 
1657.  Paulus  agreed  to  pay  to  the  burgomasters  a  fourth 
part  of  this  rent  "  precisely  every  quarter  "  and  to  furnish 
two  bondsmen.  The  excise  fees  he  was  to  collect  were  vir- 
tually the  same  as  those  prescribed  in  the  ordinance  of  1654. 
He  was  entitled  to  these  fees  from  the  company's  and  city's 
servants,  as  well  as  from  all  burghers  and  tavern  keepers.4 
At  his  request  the  court  (November  20,  1656)  fixed  definite 
office  hours  for  collecting.  viz. :  eight  to  eleven  and  one 
to  four,  no  licenses  to  be  granted  at  any  other  time,  "  ex- 
cept occasionally  to  some  strangers  who  would  wish  to  take 
away  wine  or  beer."  ° 

Scarcely  had  the  question  been  settled,  that  the  officials  of 
the  city  as  well  as  the  representatives  of  the  West  India 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  i,  pp.  17-8.  -  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  209. 

=  Carolus  guilder  =  about  40  cents.  *  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  ii,  p.  210 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  228. 


49]       REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         49 

Company  were  not  to  be  exempt  from  paying  the  excise, 
when  another  interesting  question  arose.  Ought  brewers 
to  pay  excise  on  the  beer  consumed  in  their  own  families? 
It  reflects  the  good  sense  of  the  burgomasters  and  schepens 
of  that  early  time  that  an  affirmative  answer  was  given.  In 
the  same  ordinance  the  farmer  was  allowed  to  inspect  the 
breweries  whenever  he  thought  proper.  For  every  brewing, 
large  or  small,  a  six-florin  fee  was  imposed.  A  permit 
carrying  with  it  a  fee  of  four  stivers  was  necessary,  if  any 
brewer  wished  to  remove  any  beer  from  the  brewery  to  a 
storehouse  or  elsewhere.  Furthermore,  in  justice  to  the 
brewers  it  was  ordained  that  all  importers  of  wine  or  beer 
must  "  make  a  bargain  "  with  the  farmer  about  the  excise 
on  what  they  intend  to  consume  in  their  own  houses,  sub- 
ject to  an  order  of  the  court  if  they  cannot  come  to  an 
agreement.1 

To  a  great  extent  the  New  Amsterdam  officials  in  these 
ordinances  were  imitating  the  practices  of  Old  Amsterdam. 
Another  thing  they  soon  did  in  further  imitation  was  to 
appoint  a  "  Surveyor  and  Guager,"  whose  business  was  to 
measure  and  properly  stamp  casks  and  barrels.  Henceforth 
no  one  could  deliver  unstamped  casks  under  a  penalty  of 
twenty-five  florins.  Weinaar  YVessels  was  the  first  ap- 
pointee to  this  position ;  he  was  entitled  to  fees  for  his  work 
of  measuring  and  stamping  varying  with  the  size  of  the 
barrel.2 

All  the  aforesaid  regulations  are  concerned  with  liquor 
as  a  commodity  subject  to  an  excise  or  tax.  We  have 
yet  to  deal  with  the  saloon  keepers,  known  at  that  time 
as  tappers  or  tapsters.  By  an  ordinance  of  the  director 
general,  January  9.  1657.  published  with  the  approval  of 
the  schout,  burgomasters  and  schepens.  all  such  were  re- 

1  Rec.  A*.  Am.,  vol.  i,  pp.  27-8.  3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  29. 


50          -V£»7  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [50 

quired  to  procure  a  license  every  three  months  x  and  to  pay 
into  the  city  treasury  for  the  same  one  pound  Flemish.2  All 
tapsters  who  wished  to  continue,  in  the  business  were  bound 
to  call  within  twenty- four  hours  of  the  above  date  at  the 
house  of  Mr.  Allard  Anthony,  treasurer  of  the  city,  and 
procure  licenses,  on  the  penalty  of  having  their  shops  closed 
and  paying  a  fine  of  twenty-five  florins.  We  find  the  price 
of  beer,  as  well  as  that  of  bread,  regulated  by  law.  The 
sum  of  "  twelve  stivers  the  vaan  "  (the  vaan  =  two  quarts) 
was  the  maximum  price  that  could  be  charged,  under  the 
same  penalty  as  stated  above.3  About  two  years  later  (No- 
vember n,  1658)  a  further  ordinance  established  prices  as 
follows : 

The  vaan  of  beer  * 6  stivers  in  silver,   9  in  beavers,  12  in  wampum 

The  pot  of  French  wine  18  24  "  36  " 

The  pot  of  Spanish  wine  24  36  "  50  " 

The  quatern  of  brandy    5  7  "  10  " 

We  are  not  surprised  to  read  that  ''  daily  complaints  " 
were  made  to  the  city  magistrates,  in  1657,  that  many  taps- 
ters and  tavern  keepers  to  keep  their  business  going  detained 
such  persons 

as  for  their  own  sake  and  advantage  would  better  attend  to 
their  occupations  and  protect  their  families  honorably  with 
God's  help,  but  cannot  make  up  their  minds  to  it,  because  of 
the  pleasures  they  find  in  drinking  and  jovial  company  by 
which  they  not  only  spend  their  daily  earnings  but  also  when 
out  of  money  pawn  the  goods  serving  to  the  necessities  of 
their  families  and  thereby  obtain  the  means  of  continuing  their 
usual  drinking  bouts.  Their  wives  and  children  suffer  in 

1  The  mayor's  court  of  March  4,  1672,  required  licenses  to  be  taken 
out  annually  on  March  25. 

2  Equals  six  florins  ($2.40).  3  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  i,  p.  28. 

*  Rcc.  N.  Am.,  vol.  i,  pp.  41-2.     On  June  21,  1661,  the  price  of  beer  per 
vaan  was  increased  to  i2l/2  stivers.    Cf.  vol.  iii,  p.  333. 


5I]       REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         ^ 

consequence  and  become  a  burden  to  the  Deaconry  of  this 
City.1 

Rarely  do  you  find  language  of  two  and  a  half  centuries  ago 
that  might  have  been  written  yesterday  almost  as  well.  The 
liquor  dealer  of  that  day,  however,  was  the  pawn  broker  as 
well,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  subsequent  regulation  that  for- 
bade tapsters  and  tavern  keepers  to  "  receive  in  pawn  "  any 
goods  and  sell  drinks  therefor,  under  penalty  of  twenty-five 
florins  for  the  first  offence,  fifty  florins  and  a  six  weeks'  sus- 
pension of  their  business  for  the  second,  and  closure  with 
restitution  of  pawned  property  for  the  third.2 

Still  another  ordinance  of  the  old  Dutch  days  relates  to 
Sunday  sale  of  liquors.  No  tavern  keeper  or  tapster  could 
open  his  place  or  sell  any  drink  before  or  during  the  sermon. 
On  Sunday  night — indeed  every  night — "  after  guard 
mounting  or  bell  ringing,"  the  same  prohibition  was  in 
force,  "  except  to  his  servants,  boarders,  or  on  public  occa- 
sions with  the  consent  and  by  order  of  the  Magistrates."  * 
This  is  an  interesting  exception,  a  survival  of  which  appears 
in  our  most  recent  excise  legislation,  the  Raines  law.4  The 
argument  that  is  made  intermittently  for  the  opening  of  the 
saloons  on  Sunday  after  one  P.  M.5  may  be  traceable  to  the 
Dutch  tapster's  opportunity  to  sell  on  Sunday  after  "  preach- 
ing "  and  before  "  guard  mounting." 

The  fondness  of  the  Indians  for  "  fire  water  "  had  oc- 
casioned still  other  regulations  at  a  very  early  date.6  The 
provincial  authorities  fixed  the  penalty  at  500  carolus  guild- 
ers, "  besides  the  responsibility  of  the  mishaps  resulting 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  i,  pp.  33-4. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  34.  3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  -4. 
*  Act  of  Assembly,  passed  March  23,  1896. 

5  See  newspapers  shortly  after  passage  of  'Raines  Law. 

6  July  i,  1647.    Rec.  X.  ^11:.,  vol.  i,  p.  3. 


52          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [52 

therefrom."  Later  they  added  "  arbitrary  corporal  pun- 
ishment," declaring  it  to  be  better  "  that  such  evil  doer  be 
punished,  than  that  a  whole  country  and  community  suffer 
through  him."  *  Furthermore  the  testimony  of  an  Indian 
was  to  be  valid  in  such  cases.  Nevertheless  we  find  this 
ordinance  apparently  forgotten  in  1658  for  on  August  12, 
the  governor's  deputy  stated  to  the  court  that  "  consider- 
able brandy  is  sold  by  the  Burghers  to  the  Indians."  2  He 
proposed  strict  regulations  and  a  penalty  of  250  florins,  but 
no  action  is  recorded.  In  the  year  before  the  first  English 
occupation,  the  burgomaster's  court  proclaimed  a  renewal 
of  the  prohibition  to  "  draw  any  strong  drink  for  the  In- 
dians or  natives  of  this  country,"  as  well  as  to  "  tap  any 
drink  or  entertain  clubs  on  the  Sabbath." 

The  liquor  ordinances  of  New  Amsterdam  were  either 
reenacted  or  rather  closely  copied  by  the  subsequent  gov- 
ernments.4 In  the  year  1676,  however,  Governor  Andros 
and  the  court  of  mayor  and  aldermen  resolved  to  do  away 
with  all  excise  fees,  although  a  license  to  sell  was  still  neces- 
sary.5 Only  licensed  houses  could  sell  less  than  ten  gal- 
lons.6 Twenty-four  such  licensed  places  appear  in  the 
records  for  i68o.7  Governor  Dongan,  in  1683,  pro- 
claimed that  none  could  receive  such  licenses  in  the  city  or 
elsewhere  without  first  obtaining  a  certificate  that  they  were 
"  of  good  life  &  Conversation  and  fitt  to  keep  such  a  house."  * 
The  fee  for  a  license  in  the  city,  as  declared  in  the  common 
council  minutes  of  April  24,  1686,  was  not  to  exceed  five 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  i,  p.  10.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  418. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  223. 

4  For  the  New  Orange  ordinances,  ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  403-6. 

*  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  16. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  15  (at  first  this  amount  was  one  gallon.    Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  16). 
7  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  80-81.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  100-101. 


53]       REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         53 

pounds.1  A  later  ordinance,  of  March  22,  1715,  increased 
the  license  fee  to  thirty  shillings."'  In  special  cases — the 
first  one  recorded  is  in  1715  3 — a  license  was  granted  gratis. 
The  person  so  favored  might  be  an  object  of  charity,  a 
widow,4  or  an  officer  of  the  corporation.5 

An  interesting  attempt  to  secure  community  responsibil- 
ity occurred  on  August  25,  1676,  when  the  mayor  and  coun- 
cil issued  this  order:  "  if  Any  Indians  shall  be  Scene  Come 
out  Drunke  of  any  House  That  itt  shall  bee  a  Sufficient  Con- 
viction And  if  Scene  Drunke  in  the  Streets  and  the  house 
not  found  Out  or  knowne  where  hee  or  Shee  was  made 
Drunke  The  whole  Street  to  bee  finable."  s  The  order 
would  be  still  more  interesting  if  any  instances  of  its  en- 
forcement were  known.  For  some  reason  the  city  officials 
after  Leisler's  rebellion  seem  to  have  relaxed,  for  we 
read  that  liquors  might  be  sold  to  the  Indians  in  quantities 
above  five  gallons  by  "  Retaylers."  The  penalty,  too,  for 
selling  a  smaller  quantity  was  but  nine  shillings.7  Before 
Governor  Dongan  granted  his  charter,  the  city  government 
did  not  have  the  benefit  of  the  license  fees ;  this  benefit  was 
asked  for  in  the  petition  of  September  27,  1683 ; s  the  request 
was  at  first  denied,9  but  subsequently  conceded.10  As  soon 
as  the  city  became  recipient  of  the  license  fees,  the  mayor,  it 
was,  instead  of  the  governor,  who  required  all  "  Taverne 
Keepers,  Inn  Keepers  Ordinary  Keepers  Victuallers  and  all 
Publick  Sellers  of  wines,  Strong  waters,  Syder,  beere,  or 
any  other  Sort  of  Liquors  by  Retaile,"  to  appear  personally 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  178.  'Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  87. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  91.  'Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  314. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  207.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  25. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  223.  8  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  no. 

9 Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  ill.  ™Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  291. 


54         NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [54 

before  him  to  take  out  their  licenses.1  Violations  of  the 
aforesaid  ordinances  and  of  similar  ones  proclaimed  later 
fill  many  a  page  in  the  minutes  of  the  court  of  the  burgo- 
masters and  schepens  and  of  that  of  the  English  mayor. 

A  certain  Abram  Carpyn,  at  various  times  summoned  be- 
fore the  mayor's  court,  was  ordered,  June  1 1,  1667,  to  prove 
for  what  trade  he  laid  in  a  certain  anker  of  rum,  as  he  was 
"  much  suspected  of  selling  strong  drink  to  the  Indians." 
This  was  the  more  probable,  since  the  anker  of  rum  found 
in  his  house  was  "  half  water."  At  a  subsequent  session 
of  the  court  the  rum  was  confiscated,  as  smuggled,  and 
Carpyn  was  told  that  he  must  depart  from  the  city  if  another 
Indian  should  enter  his  house.3  On  the  testimony  of  one 
Indian  that  Anna  Koex  sold  drink  to  another  Indian,  "  upon 
Sabbath  day  Last,"  she  was  penalized  eighty  guilders  wam- 
pum plus  the  cost  of  the  suit.4 

In  the  burgomasters'  court  of  New  Orange  one  Jan 
Dircksen  Meyer  was  accused  by  Schout  Anthony  de  Milt 
for  acting  as  tapster  without  a  license  and  condemned  to 
pay  a  fine  of  thirteen  florins  ten  stivers.5  Francois  Miserty, 
a  tapster,  was  brought  before  the  same  court,  January  17, 
1674,  by  the  schout,  who  found  three  persons  ''sitting  drink- 
ing "  in  his  house.  The  tapster  tried  to  make  out  that  the 
three  brought  the  drink  to  his  house  and  so  drank,  but  the 
court  did  not  see  it  that  way  and  fined  him  twenty-five 
florins.6 

The  last  session  of  the  burgomasters'  court  of  New 
Orange  was  held,  November  9,  1674.  After  that  the  mayor 
and  aldermen  were  in  control  again  and  sheriff  displaced 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  184.  2  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vi.  p.  76. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  87.  *Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  100. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  6.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  44. 


55]       REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         55 

schout.  One  of  the  earliest  records  of  the  new  court  calls 
for  papers  in  the  English  language  instead  of  the  Dutch.1 
But  it  is  the  same  community  with  the  same  sins  as  before. 
Otto  Gerritson,  a  tapster,  whom  the  court  of  burgomasters 
the  previous  year,  on  complaint  of  the  schout,  fined  for  tap- 
ping without  a  license,2  is  now  caught  by  the  sheriff  repeating 
the  offence.  He  claimed  he  had  permission  to  sell  from  the 
collectors  of  the  tappers'  excise,  but  he  failed  to  prove  it  and 
was  again  fined.3  Mrs.  Poole  was  found  guilty  of  the  same 
offence  on  the  same  date.  The  Indians  liked  rum  just  as 
well  as  they  did  when  the  Dutch  ruled  and  they  found  people 
who  would  defy  the  laws  to  sell  it  to  them.  Abel  Harden- 
brook  was  accused  by  the  sheriff  of  selling  to  them.  April  30, 
1678,  but  on  a  sworn  statement  made  by  his  wife  he  was 
cleared.4  After  his  death  his  widow  continued  the  business, 
including  the  illegal  side  of  it,  and  was  convicted  and  fined.5 
The  usual  story  of  drink  and  the  negro  is  repeated  in  that 
session  of  the  court  in  which  a  certain  colored  man  named 
Swan,  together  with  his  wife,  confessed  "  to  selling  drinks 
to  Negroes  and  entertaining  them  at  unseasonable  hours." 
'  Twenty  five  shillings  and  costs." 

Any  white  tapster  appears  to  have  been  under  suspicion 
if  he  had  any  dealings  whatsoever  with  negro  slaves.  One 
John  Webb,  who  exercised  "  the  Art  trade  and  Mystery  of 
buying  and  selling  Wines  and  other  liquors,"  came  before 
the  mayor's  court,  August  5,  1712,  slicing  Abigail  Cogan 
for  £50.  He  claimed  there  had  never  been  a  suspicion  be- 

1  M.  C.  il/.,  November  17,  1674. 
3  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  10,  29. 

3  M.  C.  M.,  December  2,  1674,  February  9,  1675. 

4  Ibid.,  April  30,  1678.  5  Ibid.,  August  31.  1680. 
6  Ibid.,  December  7,  1680. 


56          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [56 

fore  of  his  trading  or  dealing  with  any  slaves.  The  said 
Abigail,  however,  in  the  hearing  of  many  neighbors,  used 
"  false  feigned  Scandalous  and  opprobrious  English  words  " 
to  the  effect  that  John  and  his  wife  "  Received  Goods 
Bonnets  and  Other  things  of  Negro's."  At  first  the  jury 
declared  Abigail  guilty.  She  prayed  for  an  arrest  of  judg- 
ment and  two  months  later  the  court  reversed  the  decision.1 

We  have  some  definite  information  as  to  how  extensive 
this  whole  trade  in  liquor  was  in  the  early  eighteenth 
century  compared  with  that  in  other  commodities,  in 
the  reports  of  Thomas  Weaver,  collector  of  his  Majesty's 
revenue  in  the  province  of  New  York.  For  instance, 
his  report  for  the  quarter  ending  September  25,  1701 
shows  customs  on  rum  —  just  for  that  quarter  —  to  have 
amounted  to  £207 :  19:6,  on  wine  £97  :  o :  8.  making  a  total 
for  "wet  goods,"  of  £305:0:2.  This  was  more  than 
double  the  customs  received  from  "  dry  goods  ",  which  was 
£149:  10:  1^4. 2 

The  English  conquerors  inherited  from  the  Dutch  in  1664 
two  markets  or  market  places.  One  of  these  had  been  es- 
tablished in  1656,  "  on  the  beach,  near  or  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Master  Hans  Kierstede's  house,"  5  by  order  of 
Director  Stuyvesant  and  his  council.4  Saturday  of  each  week 
was  the  appointed  day  when  "  meat,  pork,  butter,  cheese, 
turnips,  carrots  and  cabbage  and  other  country  produce  " 
might  be  brought  for  sale  to  the  spot  made  familiar  by  the 
West  India  Company's  store.  The  other  was  a  creation  of 
the  burgomasters  in  i659,5  located  in  the  broad  space  north 
of  the  fort,  the  present  site  of  Bowling  Green.  This  was. 

1  M.  C.  Zf.,  August  26,  1712,  October  21,  1712. 

2  New  York  City  Records,  "  Conveyances,"  vol.  xxx. 

3  Stokes,  I.  N.  P.,  Iconography,  vol.  ii,  plates  82  and  82,  e. 

4  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  ii,  p.  169.  5  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  219. 


57]       REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         57 

declared  to  be  "a  Market  for  fat  and  lean  cattle,"  to  be 
held  for  about  forty  days  continuously  every  fall ;  notice  of 
the  same  had  been  given  to  several  neighboring  villages.1 
The  "  Market  by  the  Strand  "  apparently  was  without  struc- 
ture of  any  sort,  produce  being  sold  from  basket  or  boat  or 
canoe;  the  "Broadway  Shambles,"  however,  was  a  tile- 
roofed  building  substantial  enough  to  be  maintained  under 
lock  and  key. 

A  slaughter  excise  with  a  farmer  of  the  same,  and  sworn 
butchers  was  also  a  part  of  the  Dutch  establishment. 
Farming  the  excise  was  auctioned  off  to  the  highest  bidder,2 
and  the  farmer  was  entitled  to  receive  fixed  fees  for  the 
different  animals  slaughtered.3  No  one  was  allowed  to 
slaughter  without  a  permit  from  the  farmer  under  penalty.4 
Denton  said  of  the  surrounding  country,  especially  of  Long 
Island,  in  1670,  that  it  was  "  plentifully  stored  with  all  sorts 
of  English  Cattel,  Horses,  Hogs,  Sheep,  Goats,  &c.  no 
place  in  the  North  of  America  better."  A  horse  or  mare, 
four  years  old,  was  valued  in  1665  at  about  £12,  a  good  cow 
at  £5,  and  a  hog  at  £i ;  whole  beef  was  worth  two  pence  a 
pound ;  pork,  three  pence ;  butter,  six  pence. ti 

There  occurred  no  appreciable  change  in  this  general  mar- 
ket system  for  several  years  after  English  rule  commenced. 
Timotheus  Gabrie,  the  farmer  of  the  slaughter  excise  in  1665, 
was  warned  to  go  and  inspect  cattle  before  he  granted  a 
license  to  slaughter,  in  order  that  the  city  might  not  be  de- 
frauded. To  the  sworn  butchers  a  slight  increase  in  fees 

1  Rec.  N .  Am.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  215-6. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  208-9.  3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  222-3. 
4  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  232. 

*  Denton,  Daniel,  Description  of  New  York,  p.  5. 

'  Wood,  Silas,  Sketch  of  the  First  Settlement  of  the  Several  Towns 
OH  Long  Island,  pp.  16-17. 


58          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

was  allowed ;  also  they  were  protected  in  their  business  by  a 
reenactment  of  the  Dutch  ordinance  forbidding  others  to 
slaughter.1 

With  the  advent  of  Governor  Andros  in  1675  came  among 
other  things  the  proposal  of  an  annual  fair  for  three  days 
in  early  November,  "  for  all  graine,  Cattle,  or  other  produce 
of  the  Country.''  This  proposal  was  made  at  the  general 
court  of  assize  and  was  embodied  in  the  governor's  proc- 
lamation of  January  29,  1677.  Anticipation  of  a  fair  had 
produced  an  item  in  the  agreement  for  the  ferry  grant  at 
Spuyten  Duyvel  in  1669  whereby  free  passage  was  to  be 
granted  droves  of  cattle  and  horses  during  the  time  of  a  fair, 
as  also  a  day  before  and  a  day  after  its  expiration.3  The  gov- 
ernor's proclamation  provided  that  any  one  attending  the  fair 
should  enjoy  freedom  of  arrest  for  debt;  also  the  location 
was  fixed  "  att  the  markett  house  &  Plaine  afore  the  Forte."  4 
In  the  same  proclamation  the  governor  ordered,  "  by  the 
advice  of  my  Counselle  &  Court  of  Mayor  and  Aldermen," 
a  weekly  market  on  Saturday,  for  which  there  was  "a  fitt 
house  beinge  now  built  by  the  Water  Side  neare  the  Bridge 
and  Weighhouse."  The  reader  will  observe  that  the  same 
two  localities  used  by  the  Dutch  are  plainly  indicated  in  this 
proclamation;  now,  however,  there  were  market  houses  in 
both  places,  of  which  fact  the  Dongan  charter,  issued  only 
a  few  years  later,  bears  evidence.5  The  order  of  Governor 
Andros  heretofore  mentioned  was  to  be  in  force  for  three 
years,  commencing  March  24,  1677;  just  as  the  time  limit 
was  about  to  expire,  the  mayor  and  aldermen  ordered  the 
Saturday  market  at  the  bridge  and  weighhouse  to  "  be  Con- 

lRec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  v.  p.  312.  *M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  4. 

3  Ch.  v,  p.  149.  *M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  40-41. 

5  Dongan  charter  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  291. 


59]       REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         59 

tinued  kept  and  observed  as  afforesaid."  They  decided 
that  there  should  be  a  Wednesday  market  also  at  the  same 
place,  "  for  ye  Better  Supply  of  ye  Cytie."  l 

When  Governor  Dongan  agreed,  in  1683,  that  the  city 
should  have  the  benefit  of  the  market  and  the  market  house, 
he  introduced  the  proviso  that  the  governor  should  appoint 
a  clerk  of  the  market  to  "  see  after  ye  Weights  &  Measures, 
&  due  Regulation  of  ye  Markett" ;  also  that  no  produce  should 
be  sold  from  '*  any  vessel  boate  or  Canoe,"  and  that  nothing 
except  butcher's  meat  should  be  sold  except  on  Wednesday 
and  Saturday.2  These  limitations  did  not  meet  with  the 
favor  of  the  common  council  and  a  committee  of  four  was 
appointed  to  confer  with  the  governor  about  the  market 
house  and  other  matters,3  with  the  result  that  the  conditions 
about  the  market  were  "  wholy  taken  off."  4  This  left  the 
municipal  officials  free  to  make  their  own  market  regula- 
tions; these  were  prepared  promptly,  ordered  published  on 
March  15,  1684,  and  to  be  put  in  execution  "  ye  week  After 
Easter."  The  following  are  some  of  the  more  important 
provisions : 

The  sale  of  meat  was  confined  to  the  bridge  market  on 
Tuesday,  Thursday  and  Saturday  at  specified  hours,  the 
ringing  of  a  bell  to  mark  the  opening  and  the  closing.  "  Fish 
Butter  Cheese  Eggs  Poultrey  fruite  Rootes,  and  herbs," 
however,  might  be  sold  every  week  day  "  att  Anytime  in 
this  or  other  Convenient  places."  The  sale  of  any  stale 
produce  or  foul  meat  was  liable  to  a  forty  shilling  fine.  Any- 
thing like  butter  or  cheese,  ordinarily  sold  by  weight,  must 
be  sold  that  way  invariably.  Such  was  the  desire  for  fresh 
eggs,  butter  and  poultry  even  in  those  clays  that  a  forty 
shilling  penalty  awaited  any  huckster,  if  he  were  to  "  en- 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  76.  -  ll>iJ.,  vol.  i,  p.  ill. 

J  Ibid.,  vol  i,  p.  ui.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  127. 


60          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [60 

grosse  "  such.1  Neither  could  any  one  buy  any  produce 
in  the  market  "  to  Retaile  there  Againe."  The  mayor  and 
aldermen  were  to  appoint  a  clerk  of  the  market  to  see  that 
these  regulations  were  observed  and  to  lease  stalls  in  the 
market  house  to  such  as  desired  them.2 

In  the  following  July  the  governor  expressed  a  wish  that 
the  market  place  be  removed  to  "  the  Vacant  ground 
before  the  Fort."  While  the  subsequent  order  of  the  court 
leaves  much  to  be  desired  in  the  way  of  clarity,3  the  min- 
utes of  later  years  show  that  the  pressure  of  increasing  com- 
merce suggested  the  use  of  the  market  house,  situated  so 
near  the  dock,  preferably  as  a  storehouse  or  warehouse 
under  a  keeper's  charge,  who  collected  on  commission  at 
specified  storage  rates.*  "  The  Green  before  the  ffort  "  was 
surely  the  location  of  a  "  Butchers  Shamble  "  5  in  1691,  and 
probably  other  provisions  had  been  sold  there.  The  year 
1691  marks  the  first  great  expansion  in  the  city's  markets. 
This  was  the  outcome  of  the  report  of  a  committee  of  the 
common  council,  on  April  18.  A  second  meat  market  was 
established  *'  under  the  trees  by  the  Slipp,"  6  and  the  "  Coun- 
try People  Shall  bring  flesh  to  Either  of  the  two  places 
Sueiting  there  best  Conveniency."  To  the  same  places  but- 
ter, eggs  and  poultry  were  also  to  be  brought.  A  separate 
market  place,  however,  was  established  for  fish,  fruits  and 
vegetables,  "  over  against  the  City  Hall  or  the  house  that 

1  Cf.  Green,  Mrs.  J.  R.,  Torvn  Life  in  the  Fifteenth  Century,  vol.  ii, 
p.  39,  for  limitation  of  engrossing  and  forestalling  in  the  town  markets 
of  England. 

J3/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  139-40. 

J  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  151. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  179,  192,  194,  195,  202,  203. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  215-6. 

0  The  "  Old  Slip ;  "  for  this  and  other  localities  in  the  next  few  pages,. 
cf.  Stokes,  Iconography,  vol.  i,  plate  30. 


REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         6 1 

Long  Mary  formerly  lived  in."  The  markets  were  declared 
open  by  the  ringing  of  a  bell  at  seven  on  Tuesday,  Thursday 
and  Saturday,  although  it  was  recognized  that  unfavorable 
tides  or  weather  might  give  sufficient  cause  for  selling  on 
a  different  day.  Sales  in  any  other  locality,  however,  were 
forbidden.  No  one  could  buy  anything  to  sell  again  *'  till 
it  hath  bin  two  houres  in  the  Markett."  x 

In  July  of  the  same  year  a  committee  was  appointed  "  to 
build  a  Markett  house  att  the  End  of  the  Heeregraft  Street 
for  all  but  Butchers  Meate."  ~  It  is  reasonable  to  believe 
that  this  house  was  planned  out  of  consideration  for  those 
who  had  been  using  the  neighboring  Coenties  Slip  locality, 
which  had  been  prescribed  for  fish,  fruit  and  vegetables ;  it 
would  be  convenient,  also,  to  the  dock.  At  any  rate,  it  was 
more  than  fifteen  years  thereafter  when  a  separate  market 
house  was  constructed  on  the  north  side  of  Coenties  Slip.3 
Previous  to  1731  two  additional  market  houses  had  been  con- 
structed farther  up  on  the  East  River  shore,  at  Burgers  Path D 
and  the  east  end  of  Wall  Street.3  respectively.  Whereas  the 
early  houses  had  been  built  by  the  corporation,  the  later 
ones  were  constructed  at  the  expense  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the  community  immediately  benefited,  permission  first  hav- 
ing been  obtained  from  the  common  council.  At  one  time 
during  the  second  intercolonial  war  the  common  council 
complied  with  an  order  of  the  governor  to  set  apart  all  the 
market  houses,  except  the  one  at  Burgers  Path,  for  the 
carpenters  to  build  bateaux  in.8 

In  order  to  get  meat,  animals  have  to  be  slaughtered ;  even 
then  no  community  found  comfort  in  the  near  presence  of  a 
slaughter  house  (or  a  tannery),  and  one  of  the  earliest 

Mf.  C.  C.,  vol.  i.  pp.  217-8.  *  7&id.,  vol.  i,  p.  231. 

"  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  302-3.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  147,  352. 

5  lb:d..  vol.  ii,  p.  385.  8  fbid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  444. 


62          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [£2 

English  records  ordered  such  a  structure  banished  from  the 
city  limits.1  As  a  result  Smiths  Fly,  just  beyond  the  wall 
on  the  East  River  shore,  became  the  location  of  the  city's 
butchery.2  Messrs.  Levy  and  Rose,  to  whom  was  given  the 
privilege  to  construct  the  same,  were  allowed  to  receive  such 
fees  as  had  formerly  been  paid.  In  the  abovementioned 
regulations  of  1691,  the  prohibition  of  slaughtering  "  with- 
in the  Citty  gates  "  was  reiterated.3  For  some  inexplicable 
reason  we  find  this  ordinance  repealed  a  few  months  later ;  * 
we  are  therefore  prepared  to  hear  in  a  few  years  the  same 
old  complaint  of  "  Great  Nusance  "  and  "  Noisome  Smell 
of  ye  filth  "  in  connection  with  some  structures  in  Queen 
street ;  slaughtering  there  must  stop,  said  the  common  coun- 
cil.5 In  the  same  year,  1696,  Ebenezer  Willson,  city  treas- 
urer, was  granted  permission  to  construct  a  slaughter  house 
on  the  East  River  shore  "  on  ye  West  Side  of  ye  house  of 
Thomas  Hooks."  The  land  was  ordered  surveyed  for  a 
building,  in  dimension  twenty  by  a  hundred  feet,  a  preten- 
tious structure  for  those  days.  While  subsequent  records 
are  too  meagre  to  yield  unalterable  conclusions,  this  house 
was  probably  constructed  to  supplement  the  establishment  of 
Levy  and  Rose,  because  of  the  increasing  business.  Mr. 
Willson  probably  did  not  conduct  the  slaughter  house  in 
person,  judging  from  the  fact  that  he  soon  became  high 
sheriff  and  then  mayor.  An  ordinance  of  November  9,  1698, 
limited  butchering  once  more  to  "  the  publick  Slaughter 
houses  by  the  water  side,"  and  the  enforcement  was  made 
more  possible  by  a  further  direction  that  "  No  Cattle  be 
landed  but  att  the  Nearest  Convenient  place  to  the  sloughter 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  20.  2  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  46. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  217.  *Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  244. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  408. 

'  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  404.     A  desirable  location  beyond  the  wall  ad- 
joining the  terminal  of  the  ferry  from  Long  Island. 


63]       REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY        63 

houses."  By  1720  these  slaughter  houses  had  also  become 
"  a  Publick  Xusance  " ;  the  expansion  of  the  city,  too,  sug- 
gested that  "  more  Convenient  and  Ornamental  Buildings  " 
be  erected  "  there  and  in  that  Neighbourhood/'  So  John 
Kelly  on  his  petition  was  granted  permission  to  build  houses 
and  a  pen  at  a  point  still  farther  along  on  the  East  River  shore 
near  the  "  dwelling  house  of  Mr.  John  Deane."  His  twenty- 
one  year  monopoly  was  attended  with  many  obligations.  At 
least  three  "  substantial  "  houses  and  a  good-sized  pen  were 
to  be  constructed  within  about  nine  months.  These  were 
to  be  equipped  with  all  the  necessary  apparatus,  kept  al- 
ways in  repair  and  "  well  and  sufficiently  scoured  & 
Cleansed."  It  was  made  clear  to  certain  violators  in  the 
Out  Ward  that  any  slaughtering  in  "  House  Barn  Stable 
Out  House  Yard  Orchard  Garden  Field  or  Other  place 
within  the  Said  Ward  (Except  for  his  her  or  their  Own 
proper  use)"  would  meet  with  penalty.3 

The  year  1731,  then,  reveals  to  us  the  above-mentioned 
slaughtering  establishment  of  John  Kelly,  and  markets  in 
front  of  the  fort  at  Broadway,  at  the  foot  of  Broad  Street, 
at  Coenties  Slip,  Old  Slip  or  Burgers  Path,  and  at  the  east 
end  of  Wall  Street. 

Our  truckmen  of  today  were  always  known  as  cartmen 
or  carmen  in  the  infant  city.  The  municipal  authorities  to- 
day require  all  truckmen  to  be  licensed  before  they  can  do 
business.  In  the  beginning  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the 
carmen  themselves  were  responsible  for  such  a  practice. 
Eight  carmen  presented  a  petition  to  the  mayor's  court, 
April  1 6,  1667,  requesting  that  they  be  recognized  as  a  guild 
and  that  all  new  comers  be  forbidden  to  cart  within  the  city. 
The  request  was  granted  "  until  more  carters  are  required." 

1  M .  C.  C.,  vol.  ii.  p.  65.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii.  pp.  249-51. 

*  Ibid.,»  vol.  iii.  p.  380. 


64          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [64 

The  court  bound  them,  however,  in  time  of  fire  to  repair 
to  the  fire  and  render  all  possible  assistance  in  extinguishing 
the  flames.1 

The  court  in  its  session  of  December  17,  1667,  laid  down 
certain  conditions  on  which  the  carmen  might  ride  in  their 
carts  instead  of  walking  beside  them.  They  were  to  drive 
slowly.  They  were  to  suffer  forfeiture  of  both  horse  and 
cart  in  case  they  hurt  any  one  while  riding.  If  a  carman 
caused  a  person's  death,  his  own  life  "  shall  be  under  the 
lapse  of  the  La  we." 

These  carmen  "  do  manny  times  use  ill  and  bad  Lan- 
guage to  the  Burghers,"  was  the  astonishing  complaint  neces- 
sitating action  by  the  burgomasters  and  schepens  a  few 
months  later.  Dismissal  from  service  was  to  be  the  penalty 
if  henceforth  burghers  and  strangers  were  not  used 
"  Civilly."  3 

On  November  29,  1670,  another  petition  on  their  part  to 
the  governor  was  referred  to  the  mayor's  court.  They  re- 
quested "to  be  confirmed  in  their  places,"  promising  to  give 
satisfaction  to  everyone  employing  them,  to  fill  up  holes  in 
the  roads  about  the  city  and  do  other  such  public  work  as  the 
authorities  should  command.  Their  petition  was  granted, 
provided  they  did  as  they  promised  and  provided  also  that 
they  take  turns  every  Saturday  afternoon  carting  away  to 
some  convenient  dumping  place  the  dirt  from  the  paved 
streets.  This  dirt  was  to  be  loaded  upon  the  cart  by  the 
owners  or  tenants  of  the  houses  on  the  said  streets.  The 
carmen  must  also  agree  to  the  fixed  price  of  "  ten  Stivers 
in  Seawant  &  No  more  "  for  a  cartload  of  any  kind  of  goods 
carried  any  where  "  within  the  Gaets."  4  There  were  ten 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vi,  p.  70.  -  Ibid.,  vol.  vi.  p.  105. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  217-8.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  273. 


65]       REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         65 

of  these  "  Confirmed  "  carmen.1  During  the  next  year 
complaints  were  filed  against  several  of  them  and  they  were 
summoned  before  the  court.  They  "  made  their  Excuses 
and  promised  for  the  future  to  be  verry  Delligent  and  per- 
forme  the  said  Orders,"  after  which  they  were  again  named 
as  the  city's  carmen,  February  13,  1672.  In  addition  to 
the  original  articles  of  agreement,  there  was  now  to  be  an 
overseer  elected  annually  by  the  court  from  two  of  their 
own  nominees.  Furthermore,  in  case  of  further  just  com- 
plaints against  them,  they  would  forfeit  their  places.2  There 
were  more  complaints  two  years  later,  that  "  several  cart- 
ers refuse  and  are  unwilling  to  ride  timber,  stone  and  other 
materials  for  the  City  and  public  service  " ;  but  the  burgo- 
masters and  schepens  contented  themselves  with  resolving 
"  that  on  the  first  refusal  or  exhibition  of  unwillingness  their 
horses  shall  be  immediately  untackled,  and  they  be  deprived 
of  their  places  as  carters."  "  Charles  Floyd  was  elected  as 
the  first  overseer  or  foreman  of  the  carmen  for  the  year  com- 
mencing March  5,  1672. 4  In  the  last  days  of  the  Dutch  city 
the  carmen's  guild  complained  of  certain  intruders,  particu- 
larly boys,  riding  carts  and  trespassing  on  their  privileges. 
The  boys  were  forbidden  to  drive  carts  any  more  within  the 
city.  Some  ten  years  later  the  prohibition  was  extended  to 
include  negro  or  other  slaves.5 

The  privileges  and  duties  of  the  carmen  continued  the 
same  under  English  municipal  rule.  The  justice  of  a  higher 
charge  (six  pence  a  load)  was  recognized  for  carrying  such 
things  as  wine,  lime  and  brick,  necessitating  greater  care  or 
time  in  handling.11  On  March  15,  1684,  the  number  of  car- 
men was  increased  to  twenty.7  At  the  same  time  previous 

-Ibid.,  vol.  vi.  pp.  360-1. 
4  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  363. 
''•  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  -:8. 


1  Rcc.  A'.  Aw..,  vol.  vi,  p.  360. 


66          XEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [66 

regulations  governing  carmen  were  reenacted  and  published 
with  some  elaboration.  The  cartage  of  cord  wood  received 
especial  attention.  Six  years  earlier  the  magistrates  had  or- 
dered that  all  fire-wood  brought  to  the  city  must  be  four  feet 
in  length  and  had  declared  that  a  cord  of  this  wood  should 
measure  four  feet  in  height  and  eight  feet  in  length.  We 
have  reason  to  believe  that  this  ordinance  was  not  strictly 
enforced  before  1683,  when  two  places  within  the  city  not 
far  from  the  shore  were  designated  "  for  fire  wood  to  be 
Brought  to  And  Coarded  " ;  and  "  Corders  "  of  this  wood 
were  appointed  who  settled  any  differences  arising  between 
buyer  and  seller  and  collected  a  fee  of  4^d.  per  cord  from 
the  latter.1 

The  carmen  could  charge  is.  6d.  for  carrying  a  load  of 
wood  to  the  place  of  cording  and  from  there  to  the 
owner's  home;  one  shilling,  however,  if  it  was  carted  direct 
to  the  house  from  the  boat.  These  rates  were  to  be  doubled 
if  the  load  was  taken  "  without  the  gate." 

Another  regulation,  not  previously  noticed,  was  that  corn 
or  other  goods  brought  to  the  city  by  the  ferry  boat  were 
to  be  taken  and  immediately  unloaded  by  the  carmen ;  indeed, 
corn  and  meal  in  any  boat  was  to  be  unloaded  before  any 
other  work  was  done. 

Another  interesting  regulation,  first  appearing  at  this  time, 
was  this,  "  That  noe  Carmen  doe  Ryde  upon  their  Carts  in 
Any  of  the  Streets  or  Lanes  within  this  Citty."  We  are 
left  to  guess  the  reason  for  this.  The  carman  could  not 
consider  himself  a  part  of  the  ''  reasonable  "  load  he  was 
expected  to  carry ;  neither  could  he  load  himself  with  so  much 
that  inebriates,  if  he  must  walk  beside  his  cart.  Or  is  our 
''  safety  first  "  movement  traceable  to  the  city  magistrates 
of  1684?  It  was  not  until  a  generation  later  that  "three 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  138.  *Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  136. 


67]       REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         67 

ancient  and  infirm  "  carmen  were  licensed  to  sit  on  their 
shafts,  "  provided  they  drive  not  their  Carts  faster  than  a 
Walk  or  foot  pace,  and  not  a  Trot,  but  slowly  and 
patiently."  * 

These  ordinances  had  been  published  less  than  a  fortnight 
when  fifteen  carmen,  whose  several  names  are  listed  in  the 
records,  went  on  a  strike.  We  have  no  means  of  knowing 
the  cause,  but  it  is  clear  that  no  ideas  of  compromise 
suggested  themselves  to  the  government.  With  a  zeal 
matched  by  that  of  a  recent  mayor  in  connection  with  the 
garbage  strikers  of  191 1,2  they  were  "  Suspended  and  Dis- 
charged being  Any  Longer  Carrmen," 3  and  notice  was 
given  that  "  all  and  Every  person  or  Persons  within  this 
Citty  have  hereby  free  Lyberty  and  Lycence  to  Serve  for 
hyre  or  Wages  as  Carmen  (The  Sayd  Carmen  now  dis- 
charged, and  Slaves  Excepted)  till  further  Ordor."  4  A 
week  later  the  magistrates  gave  further  evidence  that  they 
were  in  earnest,  when  some  of  the  strikers  became  penitent 
and  desired  their  jobs  back  again.  They  had  to  acknowl- 
edge their  fault,  pay  six  shillings  as  a  fine  and  agree  to  con- 
form to  the  "  Lawes  and  Orders  Establisht."  Even  then 
the  mayor  might  refuse  to  accept  them.  Only  three  are 
recorded  as  having  been  so  accepted.5 

In  1691  a  committee  of  the  common  council  was  appointed 
to  make  regulations  for  the  carmen.  In  their  report,  which 
was  approved  by  the  board  on  April  18,  the  following 
changes  in,  or  additions  to.  the  former  regulations  are 
noticed :  ° 

1.  Instead  of  a  supervisor,  two  captains  are  appointed. 

2.  The  number  of  carmen  is  increased  from  twenty  to 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  304.  2  The  Siinry,  November  25,  1911. 

3.1/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  146.  4 Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  147. 

6  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  148.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  pp.  218-9. 


68          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

twenty-four,  and  each  man  is  to  pay  six  shillings  yearly 
for  his  license. 

3.  A  carman  must  drive  his  own  cart  and  not  let  it  out 
to  another,  except  with  the  mayor's  permission. 

4.  The  carmen  are  to  take  turns  weekly  carrying  away 
the  dirt  from  the  streets  and  may  demand  three  pence  a  load 
when  they  are  obliged  to  load  the  dirt  on  the  carts  them- 
selves. 

5.  They  are  also  to  take  turns  daily,  one  half  doing  ser- 
vice "  att  ye  Water  Side  "  and  the  other,  within  the  city. 

6.  Violations  of  the  ordinances  are  subject  to  fines — a  new 
policy.     Previously  the  violator  was  liable  to  lose  his  job. 
These  fines,  moreover,  are  payable,  one  half  to  the  city,  the 
other  half  to  the  informer,  a  practice  the  government  was 
now  employing  with  increasing  frequency.1 

It  is  manifest  from  the  foregoing  that  the  carmen  were 
the  street  cleaning  department  of  the  early  city.  A  much 
more  sensible  ordinance  about  street  rubbish  was  enacted, 
September  13,  i693-2  Saturday  is  "cleaning  up"  day  as 
before,  but  no  longer  have  we  to  picture  the  inhabitants  as 
shovelling  the  dirt  in  front  of  their  houses  into  the  cart  while 
the  carmen  Iqok  on.  Their  responsibility  now  is  to  pay  their 
three  half-pence  for  the  removal  of  the  load  and  to  give 
notice  to  some  carman  if  the  rubbish  lies  there  "Above  the 
Space  of  Seaven  Days."  The  custom-house  bridge  was 
the  dump  and  the  city  paid  the  carman  three  half -pence  per 
load  in  addition  to  what  he  received  from  the  inhabitant. 

In  1701  a  new  ordinance  relieved  the  city  from  any  ex- 
pense, once  more  the  whole  cost  resting  on  the  inhabitant, 
who  paid  the  carman  six  pence  per  load,  provided  the  latter 
loaded  the  cart  himself.3  In  1702  a  record  speaks  of  the 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  331. 


69]       REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         fa 

dump  as  "  the  River  or  some  Other  Convenient  place."  l 
A  petition  of  the  carmen  on  December  10,  1695,  for  more 
pay  and  for  a  more  rigid  restriction  of  their  number  to 
twenty-four  only  was  rejected.2  It  was  not  until  1719 
that  the  vote  of  three  pence  per  load  was  raised  to  four 
pence  half -penny,3  a  rate  they  had  been  allowed  to  charge 
for  "  Every  hogshead  of  Rum  Sugar  and  Molasses  "  just 
three  days  after  the  petition  of  1695  had  been  rejected.  At 
the  same  time  they  were  allowed  nine  pence  for  every  pipe 
of  wine  they  carried.4 

This  discrimination  in  favor  of  rum,  sugar  and  molasses 
disappeared  on  November  9,  1698.  the  cartage  for  the  same 
being  fixed  at  nine  pence  per  hogshead.5  At  about  the  same 
time,  when  the  "  good  and  Wholesome  Laws  "  were  con- 
tinued in  force  with  certain  amendments,  one  of  the  latter 
read  that  "there  be  thirty  carmen  and  as  many  more  as  the 
Mayor  And  two  of  the  Aldermen  Shall  think  Convenient."  c 

Any  treatment  of  colonial  business  and  trade  methods 
would  not  be  complete  without  a  consideration  of  the  ap- 
prentice system.  Scant  mention  of  the  subject  is  made  by 
any  of  the  writers  of  the  city's  history.  Our  knowledge 
of  the  prevalence  of  the  system  in  England  from  the  thir- 
teenth century  on  7  would  make  us  look  for  it  in  colonial 
New  York.  Among  those  record  books  previously  men- 
tioned, which  were  turned  over  to  the  successor  of  Will. 
Sharpas  in  1740,  "  four  books  of  Registring  Indentures  of 
Apprentice  Ship,  Three  bound  in  parchment,  And  the  Last 
(Now  in  Use)  in  Leather,"  were  mentioned.8  The  min- 

i  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  196.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  303. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  218.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  394. 
6  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  65.  e  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  64. 

~  Dunlop  and  Denman,  English  Apprenticeship  and  Child  Labour. 

*  ^f.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  486. 


70          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [70 

utes  further  state  that  the  first  indenture  recorded  was  under 
date  of  February  19,  1695.  ^c  are  positive,  however,  of 
the  existence,  at  a  much  earlier  date,  of  indentures  that  were 
held  to  be  valid  in  the  mayor's  court.  A  case  in  point  bears 
the  date  of  May  10,  1679,  in  which  William  De  Meyer 
sought  to  free  his  son,  who  was  bound  for  four  years  to 
Tobias  Stenwick.  The  court  ordered  that  "  unless  the 
Pit.  and  Deft,  can  agree  between  themselves  the  Pit.  his 
sonn  is  to  serve  his  tyme  according  to  contract  and  the  pit. 
to  pay  costs."  x  Another  case,  in  1682,  shows  the  court 
favoring  the  apprentice  because  the  master  was  "  Neglect- 
ing to  Instruct  him."  There  was  an  interesting  case  the 
following  year  when  the  apprentice,  who  had  returned  to 
his  father's  house  because  of  "  unreasonable  Correction," 
was  directed  to  serve  his  time  unless  there  should  be  proof 
of  "  undue  or  unreasonable  Correcon  "  in  the  future.3 

We  may  well  understand  that  the  year  1695  marks  the 
first  definite  regulation  of  the  apprentice  system  by  muni- 
cipal New  York.  Preceding  by  a  few  weeks  that  first  re- 
corded indenture  mentioned  above  was  the  first  ordinance 
of  the  common  council  relating  to  apprentices,  herewith 
quoted.  "  Noe  Merchant  or  handy  Craft  Tradesman  Shall 
take  Any  Prentice  to  teach  or  Instruct  them  in  their  Trade 
or  Calling  without  being  bound  by  Indentures  before  the 
Mayor  Recorder  or  Any  one  of  ye  Aldermen  of  the  Said 
Citty  and  Registred  In  the  Town  Clerkes  Office  and  not  for 
A  Less  Terme  than  four  years;  and  att  the  Expiration  of 
the  Indentures  the  Said  Apprentice  Shall  be  made  Free 
of  the  Said  Citty  by  his  Said  Master  if  he  have  well  and 
truly  Served  him;  &  that  the  Clerke  have  for  Registring 
each  Indenture  of  Apprenticeship  as  Aforesaid  the  Sum  of 

1  M.  C.  M.,  May  10,  1679.  *Ibid.,  November  7,  1682. 

1  Ibid.,  May  i.  1683. 


REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         yl 

three  Shillings  *  to  be  paid  by  the  Master  of  Such  Appren- 
tice bound  as  Aforesaid."  This  ordinance  was  reenacted 
in  the  same  form  periodically  until  October  30,  1711,  when 
the  minimum  length  of  service  was  extended  to  seven  years.3 
The  reason  stated  was  that  apprentices  serving  but  four 
years  were  "  seldom  Masters  of  their  Trades."  * 

Great  emphasis  appears  to  have  been  placed  on  proper 
registration — the  mayor's  court  on  July  7,  1719,  ruling  that 
Joseph  Prosser,  apprentice  to  John  Johnson,  perukemaker, 
be  "  discharged  from  his  apprenticeship  the  indenture  not 
being  Registered  according  to  Law."  5 

The  wording  of  an  indenture  was  copied  from  that  used 
in  the  mother  country,6  with  variations  to  fit  the  particular 
case.  The  apprentice  agreed  to  serve  his  master  well  and 
do  him  no  harm,  not  to  "  Purloyn,  waste  or  Destroy  "  his 
master's  goods  nor  lend  them  to  any  one,  not  to  play  "  att 
Dice  or  any  other  unlawful  Game,"  not  to  frequent  taverns 
and  not  to  absent  himself  from  his  master's  service  day  or 
night  without  leave,  and  not  to  marry.  The  master  agreed 
to  teach  the  apprentice  his  trade,  to  provide  him  during  his 
term  with  "Apparell  meate  drinke  and  bedding  and  all  other 
Necessaries  "  and  at  the  expiration  of  his  terme  to  supply 
him  "  with  two  good  and  Sufficient  Suits  of  wearing  Ap- 
parell from  head  to  foot."  7  Sometimes  the  apprentice 
lodged  at  home,  the  master  furnishing  "  meate  and  drinke  " 

1  Philadelphia  charged  the  same  fee  and  in  addition  "  One  Shilling 
and  Six  Pence  to  the  recorder  for  the  Inrolment."  Phila.,  M.  C.  C., 
p.  112.  2M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  373-4. 

3  Seven  years  had  become  the  rule  in  England  over  a  century  earlier. 
Dunlap  and  Denman,  op.  cit.,  p.  54. 

*M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  454-5.  *M.  C.  M.,  July  7,  1719. 

8  See  indenture,  dated  January  16,  1708,  Dunlop  and  Denman,  op.  cit., 
PP-  352-3- 

7  Nicholas  Auger,  unto  Wessel  Everston  Cooper,  N.  Y.  Hut.  Soc. 
Coll.,  1885,  p.  567. 


72          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [72 

only,  but  providing  employment  "  in  parts  beyond  the  Seas  " 
for  a  portion  of  the  term.1  William  Evans,  aged  fourteen 
years,  secured  unusual  terms  from  his  master,  Abraham 
Splinter, — "  Convenient  time  to  learn  to  write  and  Read 
and  to  Cypher  as  far  as  the  Rule  of  three,"  and,  at  the  ex- 
piration of  his  term,  the  promise  of  "  two  New  Suits  of 
Apparell  one  of  Broad  death  and  one  of  Stuffer  Searge 
Six  Shirts  Six  Neckcloaths  three  pairs  of  Stockings  two 
pair  of  Shoes  and  two  hatts." 

After  the  ordinance  of  1694,  the  mayor's  court  was 
no  more  inclined  than  formerly  to  allow  these  contracts  to  be 
broken ;  a  rather  rigid  adherence  to  them  was  the  rule.  To 
be  sure,  John  Troop,  "A  Barber  and  Perrewig  maker " 
(February  20,  1711)  wanted  £100  damages  and  was 
awarded  only  fifteen  shillings  and  six  pence  on  his  complaint 
that  Francis  Bouquett  incited  his  son  Peter  "  to  depart  and 
Eloign  himself  from  his  service." 3  Henry  Colic's  son 
James  was  apprenticed  to  Peter  Ament,  a  cooper,  in  1716; 
the  father  complained  to  the  court  *  that  Ament  did  not  pro- 
vide the  son  "  sufficient  Cloathes."  Father  and  son,  as 
well  as  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Ament,  were  ordered  to  attend  the 
next  session  of  the  court,  "  to  be  Examined  touching  the 
premises."  No  further  record  appears,  which  probably 
means  that  James  had  a  new  suit  before  the  next  court 
session. 

Girls  were  apprenticed,  too,  to  be  taught  "  to  read  English 
and  with  such  Other  Needleworke  and  Other  matters  for 
a  good  housewife  of  her  ability."  5  The  habitual  wording 

1  Oliver  Schuyler,  unto  John  Barbaric  Merchant,  JV.   y.  Hist.  Soc. 
Coll.,  1885,  p.  594- 

2  William  Evans,  unto  Abraham   Splinter   Cordwainer,   Tanner  and 
Currier,  ibid.,  pp.  578-9. 

3  A/.  C.  M.,  March  13,  1711.  4  Ibid.,  August  21,  1716. 

5  Margaret  Colly,  unto  John  Crooke,  Cooper,  and  Guartery,  his  wife, 
ibid.,  p.  602. 


73]       REGULATION  OF  COMMERCE  AND  INDUSTRY         73 

of  the  indenture  being  retained,  we  are  impelled  to  smile  at 
the  injunction  that  "  at  Cards  Dice  or  Other  Unlawful  game 
she  shall  not  play — nor  haunt  ale  houses  Taverns  or  Play 
houses  " ;  "a  good  suit  of  Cloathes  "  for  the  boy  becomes 
merely  "  a  good  suit  of  new  Cloaths  "  for  the  girl.1  The 
same  form  of  apprentice's  indenture  was  frequently  used 
when  the  church  wardens,  to  free  the  city  from  the  charge, 
were  ordered  to  "  put  out  "  a  fatherless  and  motherless  child, 
like  four-year-old  Mary  Drinkwater  for  a  term  of  fourteen 
years,2  and  her  eight-year-old  sister  Margaret  for  ten  years.3 
In  both  cases  it  will  be  noted  that  the  girl  will  have  become 
eighteen  at  the  expiration  of  the  term.  Four  years  later 
nine-year-old  Susannah  Maria  Beyer.  "  a  poor  Child  with- 
out any  Parents  or  Relations,"  was  apprenticed  for  a  term 
of  nine  years ; 4  nine  plus  nine  makes  eighteen,  also.  In 
the  case  of  an  orphan  boy,  thus  apprenticed,  his  term  was 
made  to  end  at  twenty-one,  as  we  would  expect.  Richard 
Blanck,  apprenticed  at  ten  for  a  term  of  eleven  years,5  and 
Justus  Whitfield,  "  aged  Eight  Years  or  thereabouts,"  ap- 
prenticed for  thirteen  years,6  are  cases  in  proof. 

The  English  poor  law  of  1601  ordered  the  justices  of  the 
peace  to  bind  out  as  apprentices  the  children  of  poor  parents 
who  could  not  support  their  entire  families.7  We  are  glad 
to  find  no  records  to  indicate  that  this  practice  prevailed  in 
New  York.  On  the  other  hand,  the  English  practice  of 
giving  to  the  apprentice  the  freedom  of  the  city  on  the 
expiration  of  his  term  was  followed  here.  In  1717  "  Robert 

1  Margaret  Colly,  unto  John  Crooke,  Cooper,  and  Guartery  his  wife, 
N.  Y.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  1885,  p.  602. 

*M.  C.  M.,  February  22,  1715.  z  Ibid.,  March  22,  1715. 

4  Ibid.,  June  30,  1719.  8 /&/</..  May  18.  1714. 

6  Ibid.,  May  24,  1720.  "  43  Eliz  c.  2. 


74          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [74 

Crannel  Junr  Glazier  and  John  Stout  Barber  were  sworn 
Freemen  of  this  City  and  Ordered  to  be  Registred  they  hav- 
ing served  their  apprenticeships  within  the  same."  1  These 
are  not  isolated  examples.2 

1  M.  C.  M.,  February  12,  1717. 

2  Ibid.,  February  19,  1717,  May  27,  1717. 


CHAPTER  III 
REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS 

WE  began  our  existence  as  a  walled  city,  typically  Euro- 
pean. Within  a  limited  area,  shut  off  by  a  wall,  on  the  lower 
end  of  Manhattan  our  early  population  was  gathered.  All 
our  early  maps  imply  congestion;  that  is  not  a  word  which 
applies  only  to  twentieth  century  conditions.  The  so- 
called  "  Duke's  plan  "  interests  us  particularly  as  showing 
the  congested  area  in  1664,  when  the  English  took  possession. 
Already  the  municipality  had  passed  its  tenth  birthday.  We 
are  fortunate  also  in  having  a  record  that  acquaints  us  with 
the  city's  thoroughfares  and  byways  at  this  time.  To  raise 
some  money  the  government — as  yet  one  of  burgomasters 
and  schepens — decided  upon  a  general  assessment,  and  listed 
the  burghers  by  streets  in  making  this  levy.  The  Hon. 
Petrus  Stuyvesant,  with  ten  others  living  on  the  Marketfield, 
lead  the  list.  There  are  twenty  such  groups  in  all,  includ- 
ing those  of  the  Heere  Straat,  on  the  Strand  of  the  North 
River,  The  Cingel  or  City  wall.  High  Street,  The  Waal,  By 
the  Water,  The  Pearl  Street,  Behind  Pearl  Street,  The 
Brewer  Street,  Winckel  Street,  Bridge  Street,  The  Heere 
Graft,  The  Prince  Graft,  Prince  Street,  The  Beavers  Graft, 
Marketfield  Alley,  Smith  Street,  In  the  Smiths  Valley, 
Without  the  Land-gate.1  Some  streets  had  already  been 
paved,2  the  expense  of  this  being  met  by  assessment  on 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  v,  pp.  221-5.  '*  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  167. 

75]  75 


76          XEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [76 

the  holders  of  abutting  property.  The  inlet  (known  gener- 
ally in  the  records  as  "  the  great  Graft  "  or  "  the  Great 
Ditch  ")  at  what  is  now  Broad  Street  had  recently  received 
considerable  attention  by  having  its  sides  lined  with  sheet 
piling.  Here  again  the  government  had  assessed  the  owners 
of  the  abutting  property  forty  guilders  ($16)  per  rod  to 
meet  the  expense,1  an  assessment  that  was  paid  grudgingly 
by  many  because  they  felt  that  the  expense  ought  to  be  shared 
by  those  who  used  the  waterway.2  An  officer  was  especially 
assigned  to  take  "  good  care  and  superintendence  on  the 
newly  constructed  Graght  that  no  filth  be  cast  into  it;  also 
that  the  boats,  canoes  and  skiffs  be  placed  in  regular  order 
therein."  3 

As  further  evidence  of  care  we  find  Governor  Lovelace 
urging  the  city  to  arrange  to  renew  the  sheet  piling  of  the  in- 
let in  1671.*  A  committee  was  named  by  the  court  to  make 
recommendation  at  the  next  meeting,  but  no  further  record 
appears  until  June  1 1,  1672.  The  governor  had  been  heard 
from  again,  and  now  the  court  gave  explicit  orders  in  regard 
to  the  necessary  repairs;  such  a  beginning  as  Johannes  De 
Peyster  had  made  was  suggested  for  the  others  to  imitate.5 
We  have  no  means  of  knowing  how  completely  these  orders 
were  carried  out,  but  we  do  know  that  three  years  later  the 
ditch  was  foul  again,  resulting  in  a  committee  being  ap- 
pointed "  to  be  overseers  for  the  cleansing  the  great  Graft 
or  Ditch."  Persons  whom  they  should  report,  would  be 
fined  "  for  their  remissness  and  contempt." 

About  a  month  before  this  there  is  a  record  of  a  "  Sur- 
veigh  of  ye  Citty  "  being  made  by  the  mayor  and  aldermen," 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  246-7. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  253-5.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vii.  p.  215. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  329.  6  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  3/7-8. 

*  Mayor's  Court  Minutes,  June  i,  1675. 


77]  REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS  77 

"  a  Propper  place  for  a  church  and  Shoemakers  Tan  Pitts  " 
being  a  particular  object  in  view.1  A  survey  of  the  Graft  ~ 
also  was  ordered  to  be  made  at  this  time  while  the  cleansing 
was  under  way,  Johannes  De  Peyster  being  a  member  of 
both  committees.  Very  likely  as  an  outcome  of  this  survey 
the  court  changed  its  policy  completely  the  following  year. 
when  it  ordered  that  the  inhabitants 

Living  within  the  Streete  Called  Heregraft  Shall  forth  with  & 
without  delay  fill  up  the  graft  or  Ditch  &  make  the  Same 
Levell  with  the  Streete  and  then  to  pave  &  pitch  the  Same 
before  there  doores  with  stones  Soe  far  as  Every  Inhabitants 
house  shall  be  fronting  to  wards  the  Said  Graft  Or  Ditch : 
upon  paine  of  Every  Person:  Soe  neglecting  Shall  have  Such 
fines  inflicted  upon  them  as  the  Courte  Shall  thincke  fitt.s 

Thus,  probably  with  no  malice  aforethought,  the  newly 
created  English  common  council  abolished  this  reminder  of 
the  Dutch  "  Vaterland." 

Not  until  now  did  Broad  Street  really  exist  and  come 
under  the  control  of  the  supervisors  of  roads  and  fences. 
These  officials  first  appear  in  the  city  records  of  1666.  when 
"  Tho :  Hall  and  the  other  farmers  both  on  this  and  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Fresh  AYater  "  4  were  ordered  to  nominate 
six  proper  persons  as  "  Overseers  of  the  Roads  and  Fences 
lying  around  this  Citv."  Two  weeks  later  the  court  elected 
from  these  nominees  iJirck  Sicken  and  Jan  Langestraat " 
and  these  men  appeared  at  the  next  session  of  the  court  and 
took  oath  to  render  justice  "without  distinction  or  regard 

1  M.  C.  .Uv  April  26.  1675.  *  Ibid.,  June  -'4.  1675. 

3  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  19. 

4  A  name  appearing  very  frequently  in  the  record-  and  applied  to  a 
body  of  water  which  formerly  existed  where  "The  Tombs"  is  now. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  345. 


78          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [78 

of  persons."  Supervisor  Langestraat  was  reappointed  sev- 
eral times  and  later  on  he  had  two  associates  instead  of  one.1 
Their  powers  extended  beyond  the  Fresh  Water  because 
Governor  Nicolls  had  included  the  whole  island  within  the 
city.2  They  cared  for  the  laying  out  and  opening  of  streets,3 
also  for  keeping  them  in  proper  order  *  and  paving  them.5 
With  the  appointment  of  Johannes  de  Peyster,  Isaac  Greve- 
raet,  Coenraet  ten  Eyck  and  Hendrick  Willemson  as  over- 
seers in  1670,  the  following  instructions  are  interesting 
enough  to  quote  in  full. 

Imprimis :  The  said  Overzeers  are  hereby  required  to  order 
that  the  Streetes  Which  are  to  be  paved  be  laid  out  as  level 
and  even  as  possible  may  be,  according  to  the  Convenience  of 
the  Streets. 

Secondly  That  the  passage  be  Raised  about  one  foot  higher 
then  the  Middle  of  the  Streets  to  the  end  the  water  may  take 
its  Course  from  the  passages  towards  the  Middle  of  the  Streets 
aforesaid. 

Thirdly  And  in  Case  the  Neighbours  are  inclined  to  wards 
the  paveing  of  the  Whole  Streetes,  they  have  Liberty  soo  to 
doo,  provided  that  all  the  Neighbours  do  Jointly  agree  about 
the  same. 

And  all  persons  Concerned  are  hereby  required  &  Strictly 
Charged  to  obey  the  orders  of  the  said  Overzeers,  according  to 
the  Tennour  of  the  act  publisht ;  Given  under  my  hand  In  New 
York  this  2nd  of  April  Anno  1670. 

Signed :  Corn.  Steenwyck  Mayor.6 

The  next  appointees  (three  in  number)  in  April  1671  were 
to  "  conduct  themselves  according  to  the  instructions  for 
Overseers  delivered  to  their  predecessors."  Particular  di- 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  222,  296.  2  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  249. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  235.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  296. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  229.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  228-9. 


79]  REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS  79 

rections  were  given  to  them  to  cooperate  with  the  magistrates 
of  the  village  of  New  Haerlem  in  laying  out  "  the  most 
suitable  road  "  between  the  city  and  the  village.  After 
that,  on  the  first  of  May,  "  the  said  road  shall  be  made  fit  for 
use  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  Village  of  Haerlem  and  the 
householders  both  on  this  and  the  other  side  of  the  Fresh 
Water,  each  for  his  limits ;  and  that  on  such  penalty  as  shall 
be  fixed  by  said  Magistrates  and  Overseers."  l 

It  was  in  the  fall  of  this  same  year  ( 1671 )  that  Governor 
Lovelace  had  recommended  to  the  court  the  repair  of  the 
sheet  piling  of  the  Graft  before  mentioned.2  In  the  same 
letter  he  made  two  other  recommendations :  first,  that  more 
effective  measures  be  taken  against  those  that  had  been 
negligent  in  the  paving  of  their  street  fronts ;  second,  "  that 
ye  warfes  on  ye  Waterside  might  be  finished."  Such  recom- 
mendations naturally  would  have  been  referred  to  the  super- 
visors, but  for  some  reason  the  court 

thought  fitt  to  Nominate  and  Appoint  Mr.  Allard  Anthony 
Sheriff,  Mr.  Nicolaes  de  Meyer  and  Mr.  Frederick  Philipse  to 
take  a  view  of  ye  said  streetes,  and  to  Cause  those  that  are 
Defective  therein  to  finish  ye  same  and  further  to  take  a  vieu 
of  ye  said  Warfes  and  heere  Graft,  according  to  ye  tennor  of 
his  honnors  Letter  and  to  give  their  advice  thereuppon  att  ye 
Next  Court  day.3 

It  may  have  been  the  intention  of  the  court  to  "  kill  "  these 
recommendations  in  committee:  at  least,  the  committee  does 
not  appear  to  have  reported. 

On  June  n  of  the  following  year  the  overseers,  having 
the  same  membership  as  in  1 670  except  that  Lourens  van  der 
Spiegel  appears  in  place  of  Isaac  Greverat,  recommended 
among  other  things  the  paving  of  a  "  Strooke  or  foot  path  " 
before  the  front  of  the  houses  from  "  the  house  of  Mr. 

1  Rec.  A".  Am.,  vol.  vi,  p.  296.  "  Cf.  supra,  p.  76. 

3 Rcc.  A".  Am.,  vol.  vi.  pp.  329-30. 


go          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [go 

Bedloo  at  the  Waterside  to  the  house  of  Cornells  Van 
Borsum  and  from  thence  to  the  house  of  Mr.  Steenwyk," 
also  from  the  house  of  Dominie  Niewenhuysen  to  the  State 
House.1  This  was  the  location  of  the  city's  first  stretch 
of  sidewalk. 

After  New  Orange  became  New  York,  in  1674,  the  ap- 
pointment of  overseers  ceased  for  a  time.  The  new  gov- 
ernment faced  a  problem  of  a  somewhat  different  nature. 
Several  persons  expressed  a  desire  to  settle  within  the  city, 
but  could  not  buy  houses  or  land  on  which  to  build  homes. 
The  congestion  was  not  so  great  that  all  the  land  was  taken 
up,  but  the  owners  refused  to  build  or  sell.  Even  the  Dutch 
burgomasters  might  not  have  recognized  this  problem  as  one 
to  be  referred  to  the  overseers  of  streets.  The  English 
mayor  and  common  council,  at  any  rate,  named  a  committee 
of  eight,  later  increased  to  eleven,2  forthwith  to  "  Servey 
and  value  all  the  vacant  Land,  and  ruinated  or  decayed 
houses  within  this  Citty,  convenient  or  fitt  to  build.'5 

The  committee  having  reported  such  valuations,  the  gov- 
ernor authorized  the  common  council  to  publish  an  ordinance 
to  the  effect  that  all  land  not  fenced  off  shall  be  deemed 
vacant  and  disposed  of  by  the  governor  "  for  the  Publick 
good."  Houses  that  were  "  decayed  "  might  be  purchased 
from  the  owners  at  the  appraised  value,  as  well  as  lots  of 
land  conveniently  situated  for  building,  unless  the  owners 
saw  fit  themselves  to  construct  thereon  "  Sufficient  dwelling 
howses"  within  a  year.4  About  a  month  later,  July  24,  1676, 
it  is  evident  that  building  operations  had  commenced,  be- 
cause it  was  ordered  that  the  ground  upon  which  any 
house  was  to  be  erected  must  be  first  viewed  by  a  committee, 
whose  statement  was  to  be  a  matter  of  record.  The  same 

M/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i.  p.  15. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  19. 


REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS  gl 

committee  was  charged  with  a  similar  responsibility  when- 
ever a  street  was  to  be  paved.1  This  committee,  therefore, 
was  practically  a  board  of  overseers  without  the  name. 

The  increasing  necessity  for  establishing  street  lines  and 
building  lines  emphasized  the  work  of  the  surveyor  and  we 
are  not  surprised  to  find  a  city  ordinance  in  1684  providing 
"  That  there  be  Sworne  Surveyors  Apoynted  for  this." 
Six  shillings  was  the  fee  to  be  paid  by  the  owner  to  the 
surveyor  who  laid  out  a  house  lot  and  gave  him  a  certificate 
thereof.  No  one  could  build  on  a  lot  until  its  front  was 
properly  surveyed.  Any  paving  of  the  street  in  front  of  the 
lot  must  be  done  in  "  such  manner  as  appointed  by  the  Said 
Surveyors."  In  general,  through  their  efforts  it  was  in- 
tended "  That  a  Regular  Order,  and  Uniformity  may  be 
kept  and  observed  in  the  Streetes."  The  first  two  "  sur- 
veyors for  ye  Citty  of  New  York,"  whom  the  records  re- 
veal, were  Adolph  Peterson  and  Peter  King,  in  i688.3 
Both  these  men  had  been  members  of  the  building  com- 
mittee in  1676.  Peterson  continued  to  be  surveyor  the 
rest  of  his  life.*  King,  later  on,  became  a  member  of 
the  city  council,  and  served  on  many  committees  that  were 
concerned  with  lands,  docks  and  fortifications.5  James 
Evetts  was  King's  successor  as  surveyor  in  1693  6  and  there 
is  among  the  archives  of  the  Reformed  Protestant  Dutch 
Church,  under  date  of  1696,  a  survey  of  164  lots  south  of 
Wall  Street  laid  out  by  him.7 

To  King  and  Peterson,  surveyors  mentioned  above,  was 
intrusted  a  task  of  considerable  magnitude  in  1686  by  Mayor 
Bayard.  They  were  to  survey  vacant  lands  in  and  near 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  21.  2  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  137,  226. 

s  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  195.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  226,  320-1,  372. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  237,  250,  267,  272,  274.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  320. 

7  Stokes,  Iconography  of  Manhattan  Island,  vol.  i,  plate  24. 


82          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [82 

the  dock,  "  ffrom  ye  weigh  house  to  ye  Citty  hall,"  and  lay 
out  the  same  in  lots  24  feet  broad  and  reaching  80  feet  into 
the  dock,  leaving  sufficient  space  for  a  street  in  front  of  the 
lots  on  the  land  side.1  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  it  was 
in  this  year  that  Governor  Dongan  granted  a  charter  to 
the  city.  This  charter  had  cost  £324,  but  the  extent  of  the 
city  was  defined  as  the  whole  of  the  island  of  Manhattan, 
including  "  all  the  Rivers  Rivoletts  Coves,  Creeks  waters 
and  Water  Courses  belonging  to  the  Same  Island  as  far  as 
low  water  marke,"  ~  and  the  right  of  the  common  council 
to  sell  lands  was  definitely  established.3  Indeed  it  would 
almost  seem  that  the  governor  intended  to  make  it  very  clear 
to  the  petitioners  for  a  charter  how  it  was  possible  for  them 
to  raise  an  amount  of  money  that  exceeded  the  expenses  of 
the  city  for  an  entire  year.  This  charter  was  granted  in 
April  *  and  the  aforementioned  orders  to  the  surveyors  were 
given  by  Mayor  Bayard  in  September,  as  a  result  of  which 
fourteen  lots  were  laid  out  and  reported  by  the  mayor  the 
following  May  as  having  been  "  sold  to  severall  persons  " 
for  £47O.5 

This  is  the  beginning  of  the  city's  sale  of  its  lands.  We 
are  fortunate  to  have  the  records  of  these  first  grants.6  The 
first  one  is  recorded  under  date  of  December  3,  1686:  "A 
Grant  of  a  Lott  of  ground  neare  the  Dock  to  Benjamine 
Blagge."  Among  the  grantees  appear  the  names  of  two 
women,  Maria  Schrick  7  and  Henrica  Anthony ; 8  also  the 
name  of  Governor  Dongan  himself,  who  receives  a  grant 
"  in  consideration  of  a  valluable  Sume  of  money  to  the  said 
Mayor  Aldermen  and  Commonalty." 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  195.  *Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  294. 

llbid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  297-8.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  305. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  188. 

6  Volume  of  water  grants  1686-1701,  Room  733,  Municipal  Bldg. 
''Ibid.,  p.  13.  'Ibid.,  p.  27.  9  Ibid.,  p.  12. 


83]  REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS  83 

Even  after  these  lots  were  sold  the  city  was  still  in  debt 
and  it  was  ordered,  "  that  the  Mayor  see  what  land  about 
ye  Citty  may  be  sold  and  that  he  make  sale  thereof  in  order 
to  the  payment  of  the  said  Debts."  Again,  land  by  the 
waterside  to  the  east  beyond  the  first  lots  was  ordered  sur- 
veyed and  laid  out  in  lots.1  Two  months  later  the  mayor 
reported  that  he  had  sold  these  for  two  hundred  ninety- 
three  pounds,  seventeen  shillings  and  six  pence.2  Black 
figures  that  the  first  sale  averaged  more  than  one  pound  per 
front  foot,  and  the  second  sale  about  fifteen  shillings.3 

Just  here  we  have  one  of  the  very  few  recorded  instances 
when  the  common  council  gave  orders  for  the  naming  of  a 
street,  the  thoroughfare  fronting  the  "  New  lotts  by  ye 
Water  side  from  the  Weighhouse  to  Martin  Clocks  "  being 
designated  as  "  Dock  Street."  * 

When,  the  same  year,  Governor  Dongan  expressed  the  desire 
to  Mayor  Bayard  that  care  be  taken  to  make  new  buildings 
at  the  dock  uniform,  it  looked  like  more  work  for  the  surv- 
veyors,  but  the  common  council  ordered  that  "  ye  Mayor 
with  such  as  he  shall  thinke  fitt  Discourse  ye  severall  Pur- 
chasers of  ye  lotts  there  uppon  that  Point."  At  the  same 
time  they  ordered  Aldermen  Cortlandt  and  Dekey  to  make 
a  report  on  the  condition  of  the  streets,  ''  that  Care  may  be 
taken  for  makeing  Comon  shores  and  to  Pave  and  mend 
them  as  will  be  found  necessary." 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  this  was  after  the  time  of 
Dongan's  charter  and  the  division  into  wards.  The  alder- 
men and  assistants  in  the  several  wards  were  beginning  to 

1  M '.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  188-9.     "  From  Coenratt  ten  cycks  to  Martine 
Clocks  "  is  the  exact  reading. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  190. 

3  Black,  G.  A.,  History  of  Municipal  Ownership  of  Land  on  Manhattan 
Island,  pp.  20-21. 

*.!/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  190.  '•'Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  188. 


84 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 


[84 


care  for  their  own  poor  and,  in  general,  to  represent  their 
constituents  in  the  common  council.  Land  in  the  Dock 
Ward  had  received  the  special  attention  noted  above.  The 
next  year  the  Bowery  Ward  was  honored  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  three  men  to  be  "  over  seers  of  ye  Highways  and 
ffences."  1  Directions  for  the  building  of  Dock  Street  were 
not  given  until  after  the  Leisler  episode.  "A  good  and  Sub- 
stantiall  Stone  Wall  of  three  foot  and  one  halfe  Broad  " 
was  to  be  built  at  the  water  side,  close  to  which  piles  seven 
inches  in  diameter  were  to  be  driven  five  feet  apart,  against 
which  boats  would  rub  instead  of  against  the  wall.  These 
piles  were  to  be  bound  together  by  a  plate  at  the  top.  The 
city  guaranteed  to  the  owners  of  these  lots  that  no  build- 
ing should  be  built  in  front  of  them.2 

A  start  once  having  been  made  in  acquiring  funds  by  sell- 
ing water  lots,  it  became  very  easy  to  continue  to  do  so  when 
a  particular  need  arose.  For  instance,  a  new  market  house 
and  ferry  house  were  considered  desirable  in  1691  and  more 
water  lots  were  sold,  yielding  £397 ; 3  and  the  next  year 
still  others,  yielding  £594  53.  These  latter  sales  are  inter- 
estingly summarized  for  us  in  the  common  council  minutes 
thus : 4 


Major  Merritt  2  lotts 

Mr.  Mayor 5  lotts 

Mr.  Geo:  Heathcott. .   i  Lott 

Cap.  Clarke   5  lotts 

Dirrick  vanden 

Burgh 3  lotts 

Capt.  Nich 

cl :  Morrice  ....    i  Lott 

Mr.  Morrice i  Lott 

Capt.  Skuyler 2  lotts 

Coll.  Cortlandt   3  lotts 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  194. 
3  Black,  op.  cit.,  pp.  20-21. 


£6  1 


£38:10 


£59:5 


Security 
Secu 
Secur 
Secur 

'Secu 


Cap*.  Clarke 
Majr  Merritt 
Mr.  Mayor 
Majr  Merritt 

Johafies  Kipp 


£26:10 

Secu 

Coll  :  Cortlandt 

£23:10 

Secu 

Cap*.  Clarke 

£44:— 

Secu 

Joharin  Kipp 

£53:- 

Secu 

Capt.  Skuyler 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  259. 

4  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  279. 


85]  REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS  85 

As  time  went  on,  the  conditions  on  which  the  sale  of  these 
lots  was  made  became  more  carefully  specified.  It  had  been 
expected  that  the  first  fourteen  purchasers  above  mentioned 
would,  with  some  degree  of  expedition,  place  their  section 
of  the  waterside  in  good  condition,  "  filling  up  and  Levying 
[leveling]  all  vacant  holes  and  Spaces."  *  Although  many 
different  dates  were  set  for  the  completion  of  the  same,  as 
late  as  October  20,  1691,  a  large  number  were  reported  as 
still  incomplete.2 

The  conditions  prescribed  for  the  disposal  of  the  13  lots 
in  1691  were,  that  the  purchasers  should  "fill  up  ye  ffront 
of  the  Said  Land  with  one  intire  house  which  shall  be  Two 
full  Storyes  high  above  the  ground."  The  side  fronting 
the  street  must  be  either  of  brick  or  stone.3  When  the 
twenty-five  lots,  reaching  up  the  East  River  to  Beekman's 
slip,  were  offered  for  sale,  on  May  27,  1692,*  very  careful 
arrangements  were  made.  In  the  first  place,  after  the  sur- 
vey was  made,  a  value  per  front  foot  was  fixed  for  the 
various  lots.  Those  nearest  the  dock  were  said  to  be  worth 
twenty-five  shillings  per  foot  and  this  valuation  diminished 
to  fifteen  shillings  for  those  farthest  away.  Then  the  hold- 
ers of  the  adjacent  upland  were  given  the  first  chance  to 
purchase,  at  the  appraised  value,  the  lots  "  in  their  ffront."  5 
Every  purchaser  had  to  find  sufficient  security  to  pledge  the 
fulfillment  of  the  conditions.  Definite  time  limits  were  set 
for  the  completion  of  payment  for  the  lots.  Details  for  the 
construction  of  the  wharf  were  specified.  It  was  to  be 
thirty  feet  broad,  and  the  outer  part  was  to  be  laid  to  low 
water  mark,  and  be  laid  in  a  frame  of  boards  such  as  the 
surveyors  should  specify.  A  definite  time  was  fixed  for 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  250.  *Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  251. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  259.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  278. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  273. 


86          HEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [86 

the  completion  of  the  wharf — a  time  that  allowed  the  pur- 
chaser about  eighteen  months — with  specified  penalties  for 
failure  so  to  do.  Such  sums  were  to  be  shared  between  the 
city  and  those  neighboring  owners  who  suffered  damage  by 
the  delay.  A  notable  change  of  policy  appears,  however. 
Whereas  the  wharves  previously  built  were  declared  "  to 
remaine  to  the  use  of  the  Citty,"  *  now  each  purchaser  was 
to  keep  his  particular  wharf  in  repair  and  "  in  Consideration 
thereof  to  reape  the  benifitt  of  his  Wharfe."  Wherever  a 
street,  like  King  Street  or  Maiden  Lane,  terminated  at  the 
water  side,  at  this  point  the  city  itself  agreed  to  build  a 
wharf,  "  equall  with  the  purchasers  "  within  the  same  limit 
of  time  and  under  the  same  penalty  for  delay.3 

As  recorded  above,  twenty-three  of  the  twenty-five  lots 
offered  for  sale  under  these  conditions  were  disposed  of 
within  three  months  and  some  of  the  purchasers  began  at 
once  to  meet  the  conditions.  This  we  know  from  a  record. 
August  10,  1692,  according  to  which  they  were  granted  per- 
mission to  get  dirt  for  filling  in  their  lots  by  digging  and 
leveling  under  the  direction  of  the  surveyors  so  much  of 
"  the  hill  by  Mr.  Beekmans  ''  as  belongs  to  the  city.4 

Thus  far  we  have  noted  transfers  of  land  initiated  by  the 
city  for  relief  from  financial  embarrassment.  In  the  midst 
of  such  activity  it  is  interesting  to  record  one  transfer  of  an 
entirely  different  character.  It  was  that  of  1691,  initiated  by 
the  "Minister,  Elders,  Deacons  and  Congregacon  of  the  Dutch 
reformed  Church/'  They  had  picked  out  a  piece  of  vacant 
land  on  the  rising  ground  remote  from  the  strand,  which 
they  wished  to  purchase,  whereon  to  erect  "a  Church  for  the 
publick  Worshipp  of  Almighty  God/'  It  was  duly  sur- 

1  M.  C.  C..  vol.  i,  p.  259.  2  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  278. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  279.  4IbiJ..  vol.  i,  p.  280. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  260. 


87]  REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS  87 

veyed,  laid  out,  and  sold  for  180  pieces  of  eight  (about 
£54),*  Samuel  Bayard  giving  his  bond  for  £100  that  the 
land  would  be  used  only  for  "A  Church  or  houses  for  pious 
and  Charitable  Uses." 

In  1694  the  city  was  beginning  sorely  to  feel  the  ex- 
pense incurred  for  defence  against  the  possible  attack  of  a 
French  fleet,  and  Mayor  De  Peyster  told  the  common 
council,  at  the  meeting  of  August  27,  that  some  means 
should  be  taken  to  satisfy  the  city's  creditors.  It  became 
easy  to  resort  to  former  methods  and  more  lots  on  the  East 
River  front  between  the  Old  slip  and  Wall  Street  were  sold.3 
Preference  was  again  given  to  the  inhabitants  whose  lands 
these  lots  fronted,  provided  they  were  willing  to  pay  thirty 
shillings  per  foot ; 4  two  of  these  land  owners,  Daniel 
Veenvos  and  Thomas  Lamberts,  conceived  that  their  prop- 
erty reached  down  to  low  water  mark  and  became  somewhat 
excited.  So  much  so,  that  they  went  over  the  heads 
of  the  city  magistrates  and  petitioned  Governor  Fletcher. 
The  latter  sent  an  order  to  the  council  to  stay  proceedings 
until  a  hearing  could  be  given.5  The  protestants  were  un- 
able to  make  good  their  claims,  so  agreement  for  the 
sale  of  several  lots  speedily  followed,  to  Daniel  Veenvos 
among  others."  Three  neighbors  of  Daniel  were  granted 
the  lots  fronting  them  at  twenty-four  instead  of  thirty  shill- 
ings per  foot,  with  the  understanding  that  they  should 
build  next  to  \Yall  Street  a  wharf  twelve  feet  wide  to  low 

1  .]/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  261.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  266. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  357.      4  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  359.        5  Ibid.,   vol.   i,    p.   361. 

6  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  362-4.  Veenvos  died  shortly  thereafter,  before 
the  sale  was  consummated,  and  his  widow  two  years  later  had  not 
complied  with  the  terms  of  the  agreement  made  with  her  husband,  still 
disputing  the  city's  right  to  the  water  front.  At  one  time  she  had  as- 
sumed to  erect  a  building  thereon,  (vol.  i.  p.  410)  but  had  been  warned 
off.  It  is  probable  that  she  finally  agreed  to  pay  £40  (vol.  i,  p.  420) 
instead  of  the  £60  previously  demanded  of  Daniel. 


88          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [88 

water  mark;  they  were  also  to  make  a  slip  adjacent  to  the 
wharf.1  Enough  has  been  said  to  show,  first,  that  in  the 
last  decade  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  city  surveyors  had 
become  very  busy  people;  secondly,  that  the  East  River 
front  of  Manhattan  Island,  through  increasing  revenues 
from  the  sale  of  its  water  lots,  had  come  to  have  a  recog- 
nized value. 

Noticeable  is  the  lack  of  interest  in  the  Hudson  River 
front;  it  did  not  mean  much  as  yet  to  own  land  facing  the 
Jersey  shore.  A  vacant  tract  of  sixteen  acres  had  been 
sold  in  1686,  bringing  a  pound  per  acre.2  The  only  other 
sale  recorded  on  this  side  of  the  island  was  made  in  1700, 
after  a  new  city  hall  had  been  erected  and  the  city  govern- 
ment was  trying  to  find  the  funds  to  complete  the  payment 
therefor.3  This  was  an  upland  tract,  "  on  the  North  side 
of  Teunis  Ides."  *  A  rough  survey  indicated  "  two  hun- 
dred Acres  or  thereabouts,"  which  were  auctioned  off  to 
the  highest  bidder  for  two  hundred  and  sixteen  pounds. 
Of  such  value,  two  hundred  years  ago,  was  the  land  on  a 
small  section  of  which  Columbia  University  stands  today. 

Soon  after  the  opening  of  the  new  century  an  improved 
policy  was  inaugurated,  that  of  leasing  desirable  lands  rather 
than  selling  them.5  We  cannot  be  sure  how  this  change  of 
policy  is  to  be  explained.  Black  suggests  a  quite  plausible 
explanation.6  The  particular  land,  some  sixty  acres,  that  one 
Thomas  Coddrington  desired  to  purchase,  was  located  to 
the  east  of  where  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art  now 
stands.  Governor  Nicolls,  in  his  patent  to  the  inhabitants 
of  New  Harlem  in  i666,7  had  drawn  a  line  diagonally  across 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  368.  'Black,  op.  cit.,  p.  19. 

3  -V.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  122. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  125.     North  of  the  present  io/th  St. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  264.  6  Black,  op.  cit.,  p.  25. 

"  Riker,  History  of  Harlem,  pp.  252-3. 


89]  REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS  gg 

the  island  from  the  foot  of  the  present  Seventy-fourth  Street 
to  the  vicinity  of  what  is  now  the  Fort  Lee  ferry.  The 
Harlemites,  however,  might  go  farther  west  into  the  woods, 
beyond  the  aforesaid  bounds  for  pasturage.  It  was  surely 
some  of  the  land  last  mentioned  that  Coddrington  desired  to 
purchase.  In  granting  him  a  lease  Black  thinks  the  city  offi- 
cials of  New  York  were  seeking  to  protect  the  commons 
from  encroachment  on  the  part  of  the  Harlemites,  and  not 
to  get  revenue.1  The  same  author  would  have  strengthened 
his  argument,  if  he  had  noted  in  the  common  council  min- 
utes, that  at  the  expiration  of  the  twenty-one  years  of  the 
lease  the  lessee  was  to  "  leave  A  sufficient  fence  round  the 
demised  Premisses." 

It  would  be  easy  to  consider  the  question  thus  solved,  if 
the  corporation  had  not  made  arrangements  at  exactly  the 
same  time  to  lease  Beeckman's  swamp 3  for  twenty-one 
years  to  Rip  Van  Dam  "  for  the  Yearly  Rent  of  twenty 
Shilings  per  Annum.''  Here  there  was  no  fear  of  en- 
croachment on  the  part  of  Harlemites  or  anyone  else. 
Furthermore,  Van  Dam  would  have  been  glad  to  buy  the 
land  5  if  the  city  had  been  disposed  to  sell  rather  than  lease. 

We  are  rather  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  some  thought 
for  the  future  of  the  city  must  have  taken  possession  of  the 
common  council.  Why  not  credit  such  to  our  municipal 
forefathers  when  there  is  such  a  good  chance?  And  it  is  a 
pretty  safe  guess  that  Cornelius  De  Peyster  inspired  his 
colleagues  of  the  board  to  adopt  such  a  policy.  This  man 

1  Black,  op.  cit.,  p.  25.     The  actual  revenue  was  six  pence  a  year  per 
acre.     Cf.  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  273. 

2  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  274. 

3  About  midway  between  Ctiy  liall  Park  and  Kast  River. 

4M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  274.  '•'Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  266. 


90          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [90 

was  serving  his  first  term  in  political  office,1  the  beginning 
of  a  career  in  the  service  of  the  city  that  continued  nearly 
half  a  century,  almost  without  a  break,  until  his  death  in 
1749  or  1750.-'  From  1718  until  he  died  De  Peyster  was  city 
chamberlain.  He  was  on  the  committee  that  treated  with 
Coddrington  about  his  land.3  Significant  indeed  was  the 
institution  of  such  a  policy  when  we  think  of  the  possibility 
of  loss  to  the  modern  city  of  the  parks  that  were  then  the 
commons  in  the  center  of  the  island.  This  very  tract  of 
sixty  acres,  thus  leased  for  twenty-one  years,  was  leased 
again  to  Coddrington's  widow  for  five  years,  December  20, 
1726,*  but  reclaimed  by  the  city  before  the  five  years  had 
elapsed  because  the  conditions  of  the  lease  were  not  fulfilled.5 

Let  us  turn  now  to  such  problems  as  the  young  city  had 
in  connection  with  keeping  her  streets,  lanes  and  byways  in 
something  like  a  sanitary  condition.  Even  in  these  modern 
days,  when  the  city  provides  every  facility  for  the  disposal 
of  refuse  and  garbage,  for  a  pure  and  adequate  water  sup- 
ply and  proper  drainage,  it  requires  a  Health  Department 
with  over  3000  employees,  very  largely  to  protect  us  from 
ourselves.  Every  vacant  lot  is  witness  to  the  fact  that  an 
open  window  is  handier  than  a  garbage  can.  In  congested 
districts,  where  there  are  no  vacant  lots,  it  is  not  uncommon 
day  or  night  to  see  old  buckets,  mattresses  or  dilapidated 
furniture  fall  from  a  top-story  window  to  street  or  sidewalk, 
there  to  be  seized  upon  by  street  gamins  for  complete  de- 
molition. 

In  an  even  less  restricted  sense  the  city  street  belonged 
to  everybody  two  and  a  half  centuries  ago.  Dwellers  by 
the  strand,  to  be  sure,  might  find  the  water  to  be  near 

1  .V.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  239. 
3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  269. 
5  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  473. 


£! ]  REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS  0,1 

enough  sometimes  to  consign  their  refuse  to  the  waves,  and 
the  aforementioned  "  foulness  "  of  the  Graft  bespeaks  the 
presence  of  humanity  residing  near  by.  There  was,  how- 
ever, not  only  the  human,  but  the  animal  problem.  The 
street  and  fire  departments  today  can  tell  you  long  stories 
of  their  troubles  arising  from  the  unrestrained  small  boy. 
Then  a  somewhat  different  problem  was  the  unrestrained 
hog,  goat,  sheep,  horse  and  cow.  Of  course  they  had  the 
dog,  too,  the  most  recent  domestic  creature  for  the  modern 
city  to  bring  under  restraint,  but  he  was  so  harmless  as  com- 
pared with  the  rest  that  he  escapes  mention  in  the  records. 
The  aforesaid  animals  at  large  were  sufficiently  vexatious  to 
Director  General  Stuyvesant  in  the  years  before  the  city  was 
chartered,  so  that  he  issued  orders  seeking  to  abate  the 
nuisance,  but  apparently  with  little  effect.  It  was  injury  to 
fort  and  orchard  and  garden  that  particularly  weighed  on 
Peter's  mind,  and  the  city  was  not  yet  two  months  old  be- 
fore the  director  tried  to  make  the  new  government  accom- 
plish what  he  had  been  unable  himself  to  do.  His  letter 
to  them,  translated  from  the  Dutch,  reads  thus :  x 

Honorable,  Dear  and  Distinguished  Friends. 

We  see  with  great  grief  the  damages,  done  to  the  walls  of  the 
fort  by  hogs,  expecially  now  again  in  the  spring  when  the  grass 
conies  out.  We  made  an  order  concerning  it  last  year  at  the 
request  of  the  Select  Men,  who  promised  properly  to  fence  in 
the  fort  and  to  keep  the  hogs  meanwhile  from  the  walls.  But 
seeing  after  the  lapse  of  a  year  that  nothing  or  at  least  only 
little  has  been  clone  and  that  what  has  been  clone  at  the  fort  has 
again  been  destroyed  by  the  pigs,  as  may  daily  be  learned,  we 
are  compelled  to  enter  a  protest  about  the  nonfulfillment  of 
the  promise,  being-  told  that  the  failure  of  it,  the  destruction  of 
the  walls  and  all  our  works,  is  caused  bv  the  Select  Men  hav- 


92          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [g2 

ing  been  superseded  and  their  authority  and  duties  transferred 
to  Burgomasters  and  Schepens  who  had  accepted  to  do  the 
work.  How  this  is  we  do  not  know,  but  we  see  to  our  trouble 
and  shame  the  pigs  daily  on  the  walls,  busy  with  their  destruc- 
tion. Therefore  we  request  Burgomasters  and  Schepens  to 
give  an  order  in  accordance  with  the  before  mentioned  promise 
and  prevent  the  pigs.  Else  we  shall  be  compelled  to  carry  out 
our  former  order.  Relying  thereon  we  remain,  Honorable, 
Dear,  Distinguished  Friends, 

Your  well  meaning  friend, 

P.   STUYVESANT. 
N.  Amsterdam 
Ulto.  March, 


One  may  see  that  such  a  letter  might  easily  rub  the  new 
magistrates  the  wrong  way,  and  threats  are  said  always  to  be 
wasted  on  Dutchmen.  However,  they  went  through  the 
form  of  doing  something,  determining  "  provisionally  to 
engage  a  herdsman  and  in  the  meantime  to  make  the  fence 
as  quickly  as  possible."  1  If  any  fence  was  built  with  the 
posts  the  governor  promised  to  furnish,  it  was  not  effectual 
against  the  pigs,  and  another  communication  was  received 
from  Stuyvesant,  August  12,  1653.  He  could  scarcely  have 
made  the  burgomasters  and  schepens  believe  that  it  was 
"  certainly  the  practice  in  no  place  to  permit  cattle  to  run  at 
large  to  the  injury  and  damage  both  of  individuals  and  the 
public,"  "  as  they  were  all  familiar  with  similar  conditions 
in  the  Fatherland.  However,  some  new  work  had  just  been 
completed  on  the  fort,  and  the  "  injurious  and  intolerable 
destruction  "  daily  committed  by  hogs  which  he  called  to 
their  attention  led  them  to  "  order  their  court  messenger  to 
notify  the  Burghers  that  everyone  of  them  shall  take  care 
of  his  hogs  or  keep  them  in  the  sty  until  the  fort  and  re- 

1  Rcc.  X.  Am.,  vol.  i,  p.  79.  -  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  98. 


93]  REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS  93 

cently  constructed  works  have  been  fenced  in  with  palisades 
to  preserve  said  works  from  damage."  i 

The  order  above  plainly  shows  that  the  magistrates  did 
not  feel  that  public  opinion  would  support  an  order  for 
permanent  exclusion  of  the  animals  from  the  streets.  In- 
deed, the  next  experiment  four  years  later  was  one  com- 
pelling owners  to  put  rings  "  through  the  noses  of  their 
hogs,"  in  order  that  they  might  not  by  their  rooting  make 
the  streets  "  unfit  for  driving  over  in  wagons  and  carts."  2 

The  first  municipal  ordinance  concerning  the  disposal  of 
refuse  is  recorded  under  date  of  1657  and  reads  thus : 

Henceforth  no  one  shall  be  allowed  to  throw  into  the  streets 
or  into  the  graft  any  rubbish,  filth,  ashes,  oyster-shells,  dead 
animal  or  anything  like  it,  but  they  shall  bring  all  such  things  to 
the  to  them  most  convenient  of  the  following  places,  to  wit  the 
Strand,  near  the  City  hall,  near  the  gallows,  near  Hendrick  the 
baker,  near  Daniel  Litsco,  where  tokens  to  that  effect  shall  be 
displayed,  but  not  on  the  public  streets  under  a  penalty  of  3 
florins  for  the  first  offense,  6  florins  for  the  second,  and  arbi- 
trary punishment  for  the  third.  Furthermore,  everybody  is 
ordered  to  keep  the  streets  clean  before  his  house  or  lot  under 
the  preceding  penalties  and  that  this  be  done,  we  herewith 
charge  and  command  our  Officer  to  execute  this  order  after 
publication  and  to  proceed  against  all  transgressors,  as  in  duty 
he  is  bound."  3 

Under  the  provision  of  the  ordinance  above  would  everyone 
be  fined  who  threw  refuse  into  the  Graft?  Evidently  some 
thought  not,  because  the  magistrates  promulgated  another 
ordinance  before  the  year  was  out  (December  3.  1657)  for- 
bidding "  that  henceforth  anybody  shall  make  so  bold,  as  to 
throw  into  said  graft  any  filth  whatever,  but  he  must  carry 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  i,  pp.  97-8.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  38. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  31. 


94          XEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [94 

it  to  the  places  mentioned  in  the  proclamation  of  the  2Oth 
of  February  of  this  year  under  the  penalty  of  25  florins."  * 
The  increase  in  the  fine  should  be  noted.  Another  nuisance 
was  caused  by  some  persons  constructing  their  privies  level 
with  the  ground,  with  an  opening  towards  the  street  in  order 
that  hogs — here  they  are  again — "  may  consume  the  filth 
and  wallow  in  it."  This  not  only  produced  "a  great  stench," 
but  also  made  the  streets  "  foul  and  unfit  for  use;  "  indeed 
it  led  to  a  proposal  so  radical  as  this,  "  that  no  Burgher  shall 
keep  any  hogs  within  this  City."  Such  structures  "coming 
out  upon  the  street  "  were  ordered  removed  within  eight  days 
and  placed  where  they  would  give  "  the  least  offense  to  the 
community  under  the  penalty  of  six  florins  for  the  first 
time,  double  as  much  for  the  second,  and  arbitrary  correction 
the  third  time."  3  On  another  occasion,  in  the  Dutch  city, 
a  great  stench  was  reported  arising  from  the  presence  of 
some  dead  hogs  lying  "  here  and  there  on  the  street."  The 
schout  was  notified  to  send  the  city's  negroes  to  collect  and 
bury  the  same.4 

The  city  passed  from  Dutch  to  English  rule  in  1664,  but 
all  rulers  looked  alike  to  the  unruled  pig  family.  Witness 
the  peril  to  that  most  sacred  of  all  places,  the  "  open  and 
unfenced  "  city  graveyard,  so  rooted  by  the  hogs  that  Covert 
Loockermans,  church  warden,  was  sent  for.  He  reckoned 
it  would  cost  five  hundred  guilders  to  fence  the  same  prop- 
erly. There  was  not  the  necessary  money  "  in  the  chest," 
so  "  it  was  concluded  that  a  collection  be  made."  Five 
months  later  there  was  still  no  fence,  the  graveyard  being 
as  before  the  choicest  of  all  rooting  spots  for  the  sovereign 
pig.  Covert  was  again  summoned  to  court  together  with 

1  Rcc.  X.  Am.,  vol.  5,  p.  33.  -  Ibid.,  vol.  vii.  p.  187. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  38.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  45. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  v.  p.  253. 


0,5]  REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS  95 

his  fellow  warden,  Johannes  de  Peyster.  They  referred  to 
the  "  trifling  income  "  of  the  church  and  spoke  of  many 
small  debts  that  were  "  due  here  and  there,"  which  the 
empty  "  chest "  did  not  allow  them  to  pay.  Thereupon  the 
mayor  and  aldermen  "  resolve  to  advance  from  the  Burghers 
excise  "  the  amount  necessary  to  build  the  fence,  the  church 
wardens  promising  to  repay  "  from  the  first  incoming 
money."  a 

A  man  who  figures  almost  as  frequently  in  the  early  re- 
cords of  the  city  as  Peter  Stuyvesant  himself,  is  Allard 
Anthony.  He  was  one  of  the  first  board  of  schepens  in  the 
city  and  commanded  Governor  Nicolls'  respect  sufficiently 
to  be  appointed  sheriff  in  the  English  city.  He  likewise 
was  an  owner  of  hogs — the  same  untethered  species.  His 
wife  complained  before  the  mayor's  court,  September  15, 
1668,  that  some  of  her  pigs  had  been  found  killed  on  the 
land  of  certain  neighboring  negroes.  The  Africans  denied 
being  guilty  of  killing  the  animals.  Anthony  had  been  fined 
a  short  time  previously  for  damages  caused  his  negro  neigh- 
bors because  of  his  "  imperfect "  fence.  It  is  a  very  safe 
guess  that  the  damages  were  traceable  to  his  hogs  and  that 
the  negroes  took  vengeance.  The  court  ordered  the  ex-sheriff 
to  repair  his  fence  to  prevent  any  further  damage,  while 
the  aforesaid  negroes  were  told  "  to  keep  still  and  quiet, 
so  as  to  give  no  cause  of  complaint  to  their  neighbours." 
Probably  Allard  patched  up  his  fence  a  little  under  this 
pressure  from  the  court,  but  about  six  years  later  (December 
22,  1674)  it  was  declared  "insufficient"  again  by  another 
neighbor,  Henry  Van  Dyke,  who  complained  before  the 
court  that  ''  hee  was  greatly  damnified,  Cattell  and  hoggs 
having  thereby  destroyed  his  Orchard  and  fruite  trees." 
The  defendant  pleaded  that  he  could  not  repair  his  fence 

1  Rcc.  .V.  Am.,  vol.  v,  p.  313.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  146. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY         [96 

"  untill  ye  weather  broke  up,"  and  he  escaped  without 
penalty  under  orders  "  to  doe  it  with  all  possible  speed  he 
could."  1  On  March  23,  following,  after  the  "  weather  " 
had  "  broken  up,"  the  court  discovered  the  fence  untouched 
and  now  ordered  "  that  ye  Deft  Doe  speedily  make  up  ye 
fence  "  and  that  "  good  men  to  bee  appointed  to  view  the 
damage."  2 

It  was  now  1673,  burgomasters  and  schepens  are  again  at 
the  helm,  and  a  fresh  attack  was  made  upon  the  pig  problem, 
thus: 

We,  Schout,  Burgomasters  and  Schepens  of  this  City  of  New 
Orange  have  thought  fit  for  the  good  of  this  City  and  the  pre- 
servation of  its  newly  erecting  fortifications  to  order  and  en- 
join on  all  our  good  inhabitants  within  this  City  and  its  juris- 
diction unto  the  Fresh  Water  to  prepare  to  confine  all  their 
hogs  within  the  time  of  twice  24  hours  and  not  to  suffer  them 
to  roam  along  the  streets  and  highways  on  this  side  of  the 
Fresh  Water,  upon  forfeiture  of  said  hogs,  to  be  applied  one 
half  of  the  officer  and  the  other  half  for  the  City."  3 

This  order  was  issued  on  August  28.  An  order  con- 
cerning these  privileged  creatures,  if  respected  for  the  time 
being,  might  easily  have  been  forgotten  four  months  later. 
At  any  rate  the  director  general  of  New  Netherland  became 
concerned  at  the  presence  of  the  hogs  "  in  multitudes  along 
the  public  streets,"  committing  great  damage  on  the  earthen 
fortifications.  Not  merely  forfeiture  of  the  hogs  this  time, 
but  "  double  the  value  thereof  "  was  to  be  the  penalty,  if  the 
animals  came  "  to,  in  or  on  the  bulwarks,  bastions,  gardens 
or  batteries  "  of  the  city.4  It  is  significant  that  under  these 
orders  one  half  of  the  penalty  went  to  the  informer,  the 
other  half  to  the  schout. 

1  Mayor's  Court  Minutes,  December  22,  1674.     3  Ibid.,  March  23,  1675. 
3  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vi,  p.  406.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  36. 


97]  REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS  QT 

The  magistrates  of  New  Orange  gave  further  evidence  of 
their  thorough  program  by  publishing  a  notice,  after  causing 
a  suitable  pound  to  be  erected,  that  stray  animals  were  to  be 
delivered  to  the  pound  keeper,  by  whom  they  were  not  to  be 
released  until  specified  fines  had  been  paid,  two  and  one-half 
florins  for  a  horse,  one  and  one-half  florins  for  an  ox  or 
cow,  one  florin  for  a  hog  "  above  four  months,"  and  twelve 
stivers  for  a  sheep  or  goat.  The  fine  was  to  be  doubled  if 
the  creature  was  found  astray  before  sunrise  or  after  sunset. 
Cattle,  inclined  to  be  wild  and  "  leap  over  proper  fences," 
must  be  tied  up  or  removed  elsewhere  when  so  notified.1 
Just  how  effective  these  strict  orders  were  we  have  no 
means  of  knowing.  No  cases  involving  the  genus  pig  or  any 
stray  cattle  appear  in  the  court  records  of  the  following  nine 
months,  the  length  of  time  New  Orange  continued  to  exist. 
It  is  hardly  safe  to  assume  from  that,  however,  that  these 
favored  creatures  disappeared  from  the  streets.  If  they 
did,  some  of  them  were  back  again  in  a  hurry.  When  the 
English  were  in  command  once  more,  a  new  proclamation 
was  in  order.  "  This  day  (-March  24,  1675)  was  Pro- 
claymed  the  edict  prohibiting  hoggs  going  about  the  streets 
of  the  Citty,  longer  than  8  days  after  the  Publication." 
Penalties  were  imposed  as  follows :  twenty  shillings  for  the 
first  offence,  forty  shillings  for  the  second,  forfeiture  of  the 
hogs  for  the  third,  such  hogs  to  be  at  the  disposal  of  the 
mayor  or  his  deputy.  It  rested  with  the  constables  to  carry 
out  this  latest  edict.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  this  edict  is 
not  only  milder  in  its  penalties  than  the  New  Orange  procla- 
mation, but  also  its  jurisdiction  is  less  extensive — merely  the 
streets  of  the  city.  The  question  about  loose  pigs  and  sheep 
"  att  ye  Bowery  "  came  up  in  1682 ;  the  former  were  barred 
from  the  locality,  but  "  Sheep  being  noe  ways  Hurtfull  " 


98          NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY        [98 

were  allowed  their  freedom.1  Toward  the  close  of  the  cen- 
tury, in  1695,  the  "  Running  of  Hogs  &  Swine  In  the  Out 
Ward  of  this  Citty  and  Liberties  of  Harlem  "  became  "  very 
offensive  and  Injurious  "  to  the  people  living  there.  An 
order  followed  that  hogs  or  swine  "  within  the  Said  Pre- 
cincts Shall  be  Kept  within  good  and  Sufficient  Fence." 

Furthermore,  any  one  was  allowed  to  kill  stray  pigs 
"  without  being  Accountable  for  the  Same  to  the  Owners 
thereof."  Alderman  Dow  was  appointed  to  post  a  notice 
of  this  order  "  In  all  the  Publick  places  In  the  Said  Ward."  2 
This  did  not  please  the  Harlemites,  who  made  an  appeal 
"  that  they  may  have  Liberty  for  their  Hoggs  to  Run  att 
Large."  This  liberty  was  granted,  provided  they  made 
their  fences  "  Six  Rales  High  in  Order  their  Improved  Land 
May  not  be  Damnified."  3 

There  is  a  noticeable  absence  in  the  court  records  of  any 
actions  regarding  these  creatures  against  whose  nomadic  life 
so  many  threats  were  uttered.  Probably,  then  as  now,  it 
was  the  damage  not  so  much  to  property  as  to  human  nos- 
trils that  effectually  kept  the  animal  in  restraint  or  banished 
him  from  society.  The  sweeping  ordinance  of  1744  against 
nuisances  did  banish  him  from  that  portion  of  the  city  south 
of  the  Fresh  Water.4  Yet,  as  late  as  1789,  the  following 
newspaper  doggerel  appeared  : 5 

O  yes  !     O  yes  !     O  yes ! 

This  is  to  give  notice 

To  all  Hogs,  Pigs,  Swine  and  their  Masters 
That  from  the  first  of  February  '89 
If  any  person  suffer  his,  her,  or  their  Swine 

To  gallop  about  the  streets  at  large 
Full  twenty  shillings  is  the  charge 

For  each  offence. 

1  Mayor's  Court  Minutes,  February  20,  1683. 

2M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  382-3.  *Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  402.     4  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  120. 

5  Smith,  T.  E.  V.,  The  City  of  Xcw  York  in  1789.  The  ordinance 
referred  to  in  this  doggerel  passed  the  common  council  November  19, 
1788,  after  having  been  rejected  in  the  previous  July. 


REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS  99 

Reverting  to  the  accumulation  of  filth  on  the  streets  and 
the  removal  of  the  same,  we  find  the  same  practice  in  vogue 
under  the  English  regime  as  under  the  Dutch.  Every  man 
continued  to  be  responsible  for  the  cleanliness  of  the  street 
in  front  of  his  own  house  or  lot.  There  were  rascals 
who  took  filth  from  their  dwellings  and  deliberately  cast  it 
into  the  street  in  front  of  others'  houses,  and  the  court  got 
after  one  John  Sharp  in  1671  on  that  very  account.1 

The  use  of  carts  for  carrying  away  garbage  and  refuse  is 
traceable  first  to  the  year  1670,  when  the  carmen  of  the  city, 
in  consideration  of  certain  requests,  were  called  upon  "  by 
turns  weekly  on  every  Saturday  in  the  afternoone  "  to  cart 
away  to  a  designated  place  the  dirt  from  the  paved  streets, 
"  provyded  the  dirt  be  throwne  &  Loaden  uppon  the  Cart 
by  the  owners  or  tenneants  of  the  houwses  in  the  said 
streets."  2 

On  the  last  day  of  December,  1675,  the  common  council 
took  occasion  to  give  notice  once  more  that  all  persons  must 
clean  the  streets  "  before  his  or  her  dores."  On  the  same 
occasion  obstructions  in  the  streets  for  the  first  time  received 
any  considerable  attention.  Back  in  1656  Director  Stuy- 
vesant  had  recommended  to  the  magistrates  action  concern- 
ing "  the  crowding  of  the  streets  with  stones  and  timber."  * 
and  we  are  led  to  infer  that  some  ineffective  orders  may 
have  been  issued  some  years  later.  Now,  however,  all  per- 
sons that  shall  "  Sett  any  Wagons,  Carts,  or  Sleade  in  the 
Streetes  "  will  be  proceeded  against.5  About  a  year  later 
(November  13,  1676)  we  find  for  the  first  time  an  ordi- 
nance imposing  a  fine  on  any  one  who  throws  into  the  street 

1  Rec.  A7.  Am.,  vol.  vi.  p.  349.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  273,  3601. 

M/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  7. 

4  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  ii,  p.  162.  bM.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  7-8. 


IOQ        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [IOQ 

dirt  or  oyster  shells,  or  ashes  "  which  have  any  ffire  in 
Them."  Ten  shillings  was  the  penalty.  At  the  same  time 
the  magistrates  emphasized  again  that  a  three-shilling  fine 
would  be  imposed  on  any  person  who  did  not  "  on  Every 
Saturday  Night  or  oftener  Sweepe  The  dirt  or  filth  before 
their  dores  on  heapes,"  and  carmen  must  carry  the  refuse 
away  "  Upon  paine  of  Loosinge  their  Liberty  of  Beinge 
Carmen."  *  Some  years  later  (March  15,  1684)  the  time 
for  the  weekly  cleaning  of  the  streets  was  changed  from 
Saturday  night  to  Saturday  morning2 — a  change  that  ap- 
peals to  reason. 

The  attempt  to  prohibit  dumping  refuse  in  the  streets 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  effective,  and  so  the  common 
council  tried  a  new  scheme  in  1691.  Anyone  who  gave  in- 
formation resulting  in  a  fine  being  imposed  was  to  receive 
half  the  amount  of  the  fine,  the  other  half  going  to  the  city.3 
At  the  same  time  a  definite  arrangement  was  made  in  regard 
to  loading  refuse  into  the  carts.  Each  householder  was  to 
load  it  himself  or  pay  the  carmen  three  pence  for  doing  so.4 
Obstruction  of  the  streets  by  certain  merchants  who  found 
it  convenient  to  let  timber  which  they  were  desirous  to  sell  lie 
in  the  thoroughfare,  was  also  condemned." 

The  reader  may  easily  imagine  that  the  churchgoer,  on 
a  Sunday  morning,  often  saw  the  heaps  of  dirt  unremoved,6 
or,  worse  still,  a  brisk  wind  might  be  working  mischief  and 
driving  the  dust  into  his  eyes.  A  carman  who  was  expected 
to  carry  away  this  refuse  gratis  readily  found  himself 
''driven  to  death"  on  Saturday  afternoons.  So  when  the 
city  (Sept.  13,  1693)  found  a  use  for  dirt  in  filling  in  the 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  28-9.  *Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  137. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  224.  'Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  219,  224,  245. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  224,  247. 

"  Such  a  condition  is  inferred  in  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  331. 


101  ]  REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS  IOI 

custom  house  bridge,  the  common  council  thought  to  remedy 
conditions  by  an  ordinance  authorizing  the  payment  to  car- 
men of  three  half-pence  a  load  by  the  city  and  an  equivalent 
amount  by  the  inhabitant  "  where  Such  Dirt  Rubish  &c 
Shall  Lye."1 

Soon  after  this  came  the  next  step  in  street  cleaning, 
namely,  entrusting  to  one  man  the  work  of  cleaning  the 
streets.  When  the  innovation  was  first  suggested  in  the 
common  council,  April  26,  1695,  John  Vandespiegel,  him- 
self a  member  of  that  body,  "  propos'd  to  Undertake  the 
Same  &  Desir'd  time  to  Consider  what  Sallery  he  might 
Deserve  for  the  Effecting  thereof."  At  the  next  meeting 
he  said  he  would  undertake  for  one  year  "  to  Supervise  the 
Cleansing  of  the  Streets  from  the  filth  and  Dirte  "  for  £3O.3 
His  offer  was  accepted  and  our  first  "  Commissioner  of 
Street  Cleaning  "  began  his  work.  "  Supervising  "  appar- 
ently was  a  rather  high  sounding  term  to  apply  to  a  man 
who  superseded  the  carmen  in  himself  carting  away  the 
heaps  of  dirt  on  Saturday  afternoons,  so  he  became  a  plain 
"  scavenger,"  4  a  term  which  continued  to  be  applied  to  his 
successors  in  office  for  nearly  twenty  years.  Such  a  con- 
tinuance of  policy  must  have  brought,  on  the  whole,  a  de- 
gree of  satisfaction.  Yet  there  are  evidences  that  vigilance 
was  still  the  price  of  cleanliness.  For  instance,  when  the 
common  council,  in  1699.  named  a  committee  to  "Agree 
with  A  Scavenger  for  the  Cleaning  of  the  Streets,"  it  also 
gave  orders  at  the  same  meeting  that  the  "  Cryer  doe  Give 
Notice  to  the  Inhabitants  Every  Saturday  Morning  to  Clean 
ye  Streets  and  Sweep  ye  Dirte  on  heaps  before  their  Re- 
spective dwelling  houses  And  that  the  Sheriff  Constables  and 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  33i.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  3/6. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  377-  4  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  4^0. 


102        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [IO2 

Other  Officers  have  Notice  to  put  the  Laws  made  for  keep- 
ing Clean  ye  Streets  in  due  Execution."  x 

This  order  was  dated  March  31.  The  student  of  old 
records  need  not  be  told  that  the  very  wholesome  "  clean 
up  crusades,"  the  accompaniment  of  our  early  spring  season, 
are  a  modern  innovation.  It  is  interesting  to  note  how 
frequently  these  oft-recurring  ordinances  of  the  common 
council  belong  to  the  months  of  March  and  April.  By  the 
aforesaid  order  the  inhabitants  were  to  be  reminded  of  their 
duty  periodically  and  all  possible  executive  authority  was 
invoked.  Again,  in  1701,  on  the  occasion  of  the  death  of 
the  governor,  Mayor  De  Riemer  felt  constrained  to  "  clean 
up,"  as  is  evidenced  by  an  order  on  the  treasurer  to  pay 
to  the  mayor  £3  199,  "  by  him  paid  to  severall  Carmen  for 
Cleaning  the  Streets  on  the  Buriall  of  the  Earle  of  Bello- 
mont."  Still  again,  in  1702,  the  common  council  referred 
to  the  ordinances  pertaining  to  the  cleaning  of  the  streets. 
as  "  much  neglected  ...  to  the  great  Damage  Annoyance  and 
prejudice  of  all  the  Inhabitants."  New  and  elaborate  or- 
ders resulted,  involving  several  new  ideas.  Friday  replaced 
Saturday  as  the  day  when  the  inhabitants  brought  forth 
broom  and  rake.  The  river  or  "  some  Other  Convenient 
place "  was  specified  for  the  dump.  Furthermore,  very 
careful  provision  was  made  that  offenders  should  not 
escape  the  prescribed  penalties.  The  mayor,  recorder  or 
any  one  of  the  aldermen  might  levy  "  by  distress  upon  the 
goods  and  Chattells  of  the  Defaulters,"  if  necessary,  and 
thus  the  informant  was  made  surer  of  the  share  due  him. 
Sheriff,  high  constables  and  petty  constables  must  en- 
force the  regulations  or  "  answer  for  their  Contempt  att 
their  Perills.3 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  74-5.  J  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  154-5- 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  195-7. 


REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS  IC>3 

Sometime  before  1708  Jacob  Cousine,  the  scavenger,  had 
his  salary  reduced  from  £30  to  £12.*  The  salary  of  the 
office  was  further  reduced  to  £10  in  iyi2.2  It  will  be  re- 
membered that  Vandespiegel,  the  first  incumbent,  was  him- 
self a  member  of  the  common  council.  Later  scavengers 
were  of  the  common  people,  whose  compensation  would  not 
arouse  the  same  enthusiasm.  However,  the  later  scaven- 
gers were  assigned  a  limited  area  for  their  "  cleaning  up;  " 
for  instance,  Cousine's  territory  was  "  the  broad  Street  of 
this  City  from  the  Corner  of  Garden  Street  that  Leads 
from  the  Dutch  Church  into  the  broad  Street  to  the  little 
Bridge  by  the  Dock."  3  We  are  probably  safe  in  assuming 
that  outside  of  this  limited  area  the  carmen  loaded  and 
carried  away  the  refuse  at  the  fixed  price  of  six  pence  per 
load — a  price  which  was  finally  increased  to  seven  pence 
half-penny  in  1731.*  Not  without  interest  is  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  woman  to  the  office  of  scavenger  in  1710.  She 
was  Ariantie  Dow,  widow,  whose  husband  had  held  that 
office  at  the  time  of  his  death.5 

By  such  methods  the  early  city  tried  to  keep  itself  clean. 
The  amount  of  money  expended  for  this  purpose  was  cer- 
tainly small.  Records  reveal  no  municipal  pride  in  clean 
streets,  but  rather  periods  of  intolerable  filth.  The  general 
topography  of  the  lower  end  of  Manhattan  Island  was  such 
that  frequent  rains  were  probably  responsible  for  as  much 
street  cleaning  as  all  human  agencies  combined.  Indeed. 
we  are  told  that  some  citizens  took  advantage  of  the 
opening  of  heaven's  flood  gates  by  sweeping  their  dirt 
at  those  times  into  the  street  gutters,  which,  by  the 
way,  appear  formerly  to  have  been  in  the  middle  of  the 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  359.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  12. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  354.     Cf.  Stokes,  Iconography,  vol.  i,  plate  27. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  103-4.  5  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  443. 


I04        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [IO4 

street  and  were  spoken  of  as  "  channels/'  A  penalty  of 
six  shillings  was  fixed  for  such  an  offence  in  I/3I.1  The 
vicinity  of  the  dock  seems  to  have  been  a  "  catch  all "  for 
much  of  the  city's  filth.  Every  rain  would  bring  its  deposit 
down  Broad  Street  and  scavengers  and  carmen  would  work 
down  the  same  street  with  their  cartloads  and  not  always 
be  careful  to  dump  into  the  water.  This,  together  with 
"  the  timber  Lumber  Barrells  Staves,  Rubish  and  other 
Trash  "  2  which  are  the  inevitable  attendants  of  a  ship's 
cargo,  gave  rise  on  many  occasions  to  special  orders  for 
cleaning  this  particular  locality,3  or  restraining  people  from 
using  it  for  a  dump.4 

"  Regulating  of  the  lights  to  be  put  out  in  the  Darke  time 
of  the  Moon,"  appears  as  an  entry  in  the  early  records. 
When  we  understand  in  this  quotation  that  "  put  out " 
means  "  hung  out  on  A  Pole  "  from  an  upper  window,  we 
realize  that  the  magistrates  were  aiming  at  a  method  of 
lighting  the  streets  "  without  expense  to  the  corporation." 
The  seventeenth  century  was  waning  when  "  the  great  In- 
conveniency  that  Attends  this  Citty  being  A  trading  place 
for  want  of  having  lights  "  led  to  official  action.  A  first 
order  (November  23,  1697),  that  every  house  should  put 
out  lights  in  their  windows  on  the  street  front  under  a 
penalty  of  nine  pence  5  per  night,  wras  speedily  changed.  Un- 
der the  new  order,  "  Every  Seaventh  house  in  the  Severall 
Wards  "  was  to  suspend  "A  Lanthorn  &  Candle  "  6  dur- 
ing the  winter  season  and  the  expense  was  to  be  "  defrayed 
in  Equal  proportion  by  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Said  Seaven 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  103.  *Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  258. 

s  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  12,  19,  318.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  318. 

0  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  21. 

6  Presumably  the  traditional  candle  protected  by  a   frame  partly  of 
glass,  partly  of  metal. 


J05]  REGULATION  OF  LAND  AND  STREETS 

houses."  The  execution  of  the  order  was  assigned  to  "  the 
Alderman  And  Assistant  of  Each  Respective  Ward."  * 
This  system  continued  with  no  material  change  for  over 
half  a  century. 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  23. 


THE  DOCK 

IT  is  difficult  today  to  imagine  a  time  in  the  history  of  the 
city  of  New  York  when  a  single  dock  was  sufficient  for  all 
its  commerce.  The  fact  remains,  however,  that  the  muni- 
cipality was  almost  a  century  old  before  it  outgrew  that  basin 
at  the  lower  end  of  the  island  shown  so  finely  in  the  "  Laba- 
dist  General  View."  *  Every  reader  of  this  chapter  should 
first  give  himself  the  pleasure  of  opening  the  first  volume 
of  Mr.  Stokes's  remarkable  work  2  to  the  frontispiece,  where 
he  may  see  the  first  little  wooden  wharf  of  1649  with  the 
towering  crane  nearby.  Then,  by  turning  from  plate  to 
plate,  with  particular  attention  to  those  numbered  8,  10,  13, 
14,  15,  17,  22  and  25,  he  may  see  the  evolution  of  the  first 
dock  and  be  in  a  position  to  appreciate  what  may  be  here- 
after said  about  the  municipal  regulation  of  the  same  and  of 
the  shipping  that  was  associated  with  it. 

That  first  wooden  wharf,  inherited  by  the  city,  was  the 
outcome  of  a  recommendation,  back  in  1647,  by  Stuyvesant's 
council.  When  a  new  and  larger  "  hooft,"  as  the  Dutch 
called  it,  became  necessary,  ten  years  later,  the  city  built  it 
out  into  the  East  River  at  a  point  above  the  former  wharf. 
There  were  at  least  two  reasons  for  this  location;  one  be- 
cause Manhattan's  neighbors  were  then  on  Long  Island 
rather  than  in  New  Jersey;  again  because  there  were  rocks 
jutting  from  the  surface  of  the  water  to  the  west.  These 

1  Long  Island  Historical  Society  Memoirs,  vol.  i,  plate  3. 
1  Stokes,  I.  N.  Phelps,  The  iconography  of  Manhattan  Island,  vol.  i. 
106  [106 


107]  THE  DOCK  107 

appear  on  the  old  prints,  sometimes  as  "  Copsey  Rocks,"  1 
then  again  as  "  Ledge  of  Rocks,"  2  and  are  now  covered  by 
Battery  Park  and  the  Aquarium. 

The  reader  will  understand,  of  course,  that  all  around  the 
lower  end  of  the  island  the  land  now  extends  three  or  four 
blocks  farther  into  the  water  than  it  did  in  those  days. 
The  curving  Pearl  Street  of  today  represents  the  strand  3 
at  the  time  this  dock  or  wharf  or  pier  or  bridge  (as 
the  English  variously  spoke  of  it)  was  constructed. 
It  was  some  time  earlier  than  April  18,  1659,  when 
the  work  was  started,  because  a  record  of  that  date 
informs  us  that  one  Pieter  Janzen  Nerengh  promised  the 
city  magistrates  that  he  would  *''  go  to  work  next  Mon- 
day .  .  .  further  to  complete  it." 4  And  soon  after 
that  the  pier  was  ready  for  use,  because  on  July  1 1  5  the 
burgomaster  and  schepens  were  making  regulations  in  re- 
gard to  its  use,  with  authority  from  the  director  general  and 
council.6  Eight  stivers  per  last  *  was  the  fee  required  for 
loading  and  discharging  at  the  pier,  the  skipper  to  pay  one- 
third  and  the  owner  or  receiver  two-thirds  of  the  fee.  One 
skipper,  Jan  Janzen  Bestevaar,  apparently  tried  to  evade  his 
fee  early  in  the  following  year,  for  the  records  show  7  that 
the  magistrates  ordered  him  to  pay  his  imposed  quota  before 
his  departure,  "  for  the  accommodation  experienced  by  him 
through  the  above  named  Pier." 

1  Stokes,  I.  N.  Phelps,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  plate  30. 

-  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  plates  26  and  27.    To  the  point  where  this  ledge  attached 
itself  to  the  main   land,   with   the  appearance   of   a  hook,   the  name 
Schreyer's  Hook  is  sometimes  applied. 

*Kelley,  F.  B.,  Historical  Guide,  map  on  p.  40. 

*  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  p.  219.  5  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  225. 

6  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  225,  250.     Stiver  equals  two  cents :  "  last,"  about 
two  tons,  making  this  charge  the  equivalent  of  eight  cents  per  ton. 
1  [bid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  250-1. 


I08        XEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [108 

Adjoining  the  dock  was  the  unpretentious  custom  house, 
or  "  Weighhouse  "  x  as  they  called  it.  Some  cargoes  were 
charged  by  the  piece  rather  than  by  weight;  for  example, 
the  skipper  who  brought  firewood  from  Long  Island  had  to 
pay  the  weighhouse  porter  two  stivers  per  hundred  pieces  of 
wood.2  If  brick  or  tiles  were  to  be  unloaded,  the  "  Grain 
and  Lime  Measurer  "  was  to  count  them,  and  a  fee  of  four 
stivers  per  thousand  was  to  be  shared  equally  by  purchaser 
and  seller.3  Some  skippers  were  disposed  to  avoid  these 
fees  by  resorting  to  the  same  methods  employed  before  the 
existence  of  a  pier.  So  the  burgomaster  resolved  (April 
9,  1660) 

to  make  an  order,  that  no  person  shall  have  power  to  unload 
any  goods  coming  from  abroad,  by  ships,  yachts  or  boats,  from 
one  ship  into  another,  or  even  to  weigh  on  board,  or  in  any 
ship  what  is  subject  to  the  Beam;  4  but  to  discharge  the  goods 
on  the  Bridge  or  Pier  which  is  built  for  that  purpose,  and  to 
weigh  at  the  Beam  what  is  subject  to  the  Beam.3 

This  pier  soon  proved  inadequate  for  the  business  of  the 
little  city.  On  November  3,  1660,  the  burgomasters  con- 
tracted with  Jan  Jansen  Hagenaar  and  his  son  Jeremias  for 
building  a  four-rod  extension  to  the  pier,  "  for  the  sum  of 
225  guilders  in  seawant  and  a  half  barrel  of  beer  in 
addition.6  Jan  died  within  the  next  two  months,  but  the 
records  inform  us  that  Jeremias  was  ordered  (January  7, 
1661),  "to  proceed  with  the  making  and  completing  the 
undertaken  Pier,  and  to  adjoin  one  to  himself  in  the  place  of 

1  Stokes,  Iconography,  vol.  i,  plate  8b. 

-  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  p.  240. 
3  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  251. 

*  A  name  applied  to  the  weigh  house  scales. 
5  Rcc.  A".  Am.,  vol.  vii,  p.  252. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  262. 


109]  THE  DOCK  109 

his  deceased  father."  :  Fifteen  years  later,  when  the  Eng- 
lish had  for  the  second  time  occupied  the  city,  this  first  dock 
had  become  unserviceable,  and  we  find  the  city  fathers  mak- 
ing provision  for  the  erection  of  a  "  new  docke  or  warfe.'' 
Merchants  within  the  city  were  to  assist  in  the  payment 
for  this  4i  proporconably  for  his  or  their  Estate  or  Estates," 
an  arrangement  that  was  allowed  by  the  governor,  and  forth- 
with put  into  execution."  There  is  a  very  interesting  record, 
under  date  of  December  10,  1676,  containing  a  list  of  about 
three  hundred  names,  against  each  of  which  is  the  amount  of 
his  assessment,  at  the  rate  of  "  One  Penny  halfe  Penny  per 
Pounde."  The  richest  man,  Frederick  Philipse,  was  called 
upon  to  pay  an  assessment  of  £81  53;  Cornelius  Steenwyck 
£25;  four  others,  including  Jacob  Leisler,  £18  55;  while 
seventy-two  were  taxed  6s  3d  on  a  valuation  of  £50.  The 
money  thus  raised  was  to  be  used  in  part  for  the  new  dock.3 
Twenty-five  other  persons  were  also  assessed,  "  who  have 
dealt  and  Traded  in  this  Place  for  Seuerall  and  great  Sumes 
and  doe  intend  Suddenly  to  depart  from  hence  to  other 
Parts."  At  a  meeting  of  the  board,  January  10,  1676,  it 
was  estimated  that  18,000  cartloads  of  stone,  at  two  shillings 
per  load,  would  be  sufficient  for  the  construction  of  the 
dock.5  This  means,  of  course,  that  an  attempt  was  made 
to  give  the  wharf  a  strength  and  permanence  that  had  been 
lacking  in  the  previous  construction. 

Regulations  for  the  care  of  the  clock  were  read  and  ap- 
proved (March  22,  1684)  by  the  common  council  and  were 
ordered  to  be  "  Fairly  \Yritt,"  that  they  might  be  presented 
to  the  governor  for  bis  approval.  Some  of  these  rules  were  : 

No  vessel  lying  within  the  dock  was  allowed  to  have  a  fire 
on  board  after  dark. 

1  Rcc.  -V.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  p.  263.  'ZM.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  9. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  29-37.  4 //>;'</.,  vol.  i,  p.  j;-j6. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  17. 


IIO       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [IIO 

No  vessel  was  to  cast  anchor  within  or  near  the  dock, 
whereby  other  vessels  might  be  endangered. 

No  one  was  allowed  to  dump  any  refuse  near  the  dock 
that  would  hamper  its  usefulness. 

Vessels  of  ten  tons  or  less,  not  belonging  to  the  port,  and 
anchoring  here,  were  to  pay  one  shilling ;  those  from  ten  to 
twenty  tons  paid  twenty-five,  "And  Soe  Proportionably,  One 
Shilling,  for  Euery  Tenn  Tunns  more." 

DOCKAGE  PAYMENTS 
Vessels  belonging  to  the  port — annual  payments. 

A  vessel  or  boat  of  i  ton  to  5  tons     oo  06  oo 

From    5  to  10  tons , oo  09  oo 

"      10  to  15    "     oo  12  oo 

"     15  to  25    "     01  oo  oo 

"     251050    "     01  10  oo 

All  above  50  tons     02  10  oo 

All  other  vessels  had  to  pay  every  time  they  docked 

A  vessel  of  10  tons  or  under oo  06  oo 

From  10  to  20  tons   oo  12  oo 

"      20  to  30     "     oo  18  oo 

"      30  to  50     "     oi  04  oo 

"      50  to  ioo  "     oi  10  oo 

The  fees  named  above  were  to  be  increased  "  Proportion- 
ably  "  if  they  "  Lye  Above  one  Month."  a 

A  subsequent  order  of  September  6,  1699,  is  to  the  effect 
that  a  penalty  of  six  shillings  shall  be  imposed  for  every  tide 
beyond  a  "  Convenient  time  "  for  Loading  &  unloading.2 

Besides  the  fees  for  anchorage  and  dockage,  provision 
was  also  made  for  the  collection  of  "  Bridgemoney."  This 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  142-4.  More  specific  in  this  respect  were  the 
dock  regulations  in  Philadelphia,  under  date  of  August  10,  1716.  There 
vessels  were  allowed  only  fifteen  days  in  dock,  "  ffive  days  to  unload  and 
ten  days  to  Load,"  with  two  shillings  per  day  fine  after  that  time.  One 
shilling  per  ton  was  charged  "  for  Unloading  and  the  same  for  Loading." 
Minutes  of  Philadelphia  Common  Council,  pp.  109-110. 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  84. 


Hi]  THE  DOCK  m 

was  a  tax  of  twelve  pence  per  ton  on  imports  from  any 
place  beyond  the  east  end  of  Long  Island  and  south  of  Sandy 
Hook;  also  on  exports.  Sugar,  molasses,  cotton  wool, 
ginger,  logwood  and  other  sorts  of  dyeing  wood,  beef,  pork, 
flour,  bread,  peas,  train  oil,  corn  and  tobacco  are  particul- 
larly  specified.  Each  horse  transported  out  of  the  province 
from  the  city  was  taxed  twelve  pence.  All  fees  were  to  be 
collected  by  a  haven  master,  who  was  to  render  an  account 
and  make  returns  to  the  city  treasurer  every  three  months, 
at  least,  and  be  allowed  ten  per  cent  commission.  In  case 
of  any  controversy  regarding  the  regulations  or  rates  or 
penalties — a  specific  penalty  being  attached  to  each  offence — 
the  mayor  was  to  decide,  or,  in  the  mayor's  absence,  the 
eldest  alderman.1 

During  the  five  years  preceding  1684  we  have  evidence 
that  Peter  Delanoy,  Joseph  Lee,  William  Dyer,  Richard 
Welsh,  Thomas  Coker  and  Lucas  Santen  were  haven  mas- 
ters in  succession,  all  of  whom  were  called  upon  to  produce 
their  accounts  for  dockage  before  a  special  committee  of 
the  common  council,  in  February  i684.2  Indeed,  any  per- 
plexities that  confront  our  present  Department  of  Docks 
and  Ferries  have  their  precedents.  On  more  than  one  oc- 
casion mismanagement  or  graft  in  case  of  this  one  dock 
aroused  the  wrath  of  the  magistrates. 

Thomas  Smith  was  spoken  of,  February  16,  1684,  as  "  ye 
Now  Haven  master."  3  The  same  man  is  referred  to  in 
the  minutes  of  the  mayor's  court  in  the  following  year  as 
''  \Vaterbayliffe  ",4  when  he  reported  the  seizure  of  a  cer- 
tain brigantine  lying  within  the  dock,  "  together  with  her 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  145.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  121-4. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  124. 

4  Mayor's  Court  Minutes,  April  28,  1685.     The  corresponding  official 
in  English  boroughs  and  in  Pennsylvania  is  so  called. 


H2        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [II2 

Tackle  and  furniture."  This  seizure,  he  said,  was  made  on 
information  of  Ex-Mayor  Dyer  and  by  the  order  of  the 
governor  and  council.  The  declaration  of  the  court  in  this 
instance  is  interesting :  "  Noe  Information  being  Entered 
in  this  Court  concerning  the  said  Vessell  or  any  writt  issued 
out  from  this  court  thereon,  they  Cannot  proceed  or  Meddle 
therein."  i 

Some  time  previous  to  1684 — we  have  no  record  of  the 
exact  date — a  warehouse  had  been  built  in  proximity  to  the 
dock.  At  a  common  council  meeting,  July  10,  1684,  Peter 
Stoutenburgh  was  "Apoynted  Over  Seer  of  the  work  to  be 
done  On  the  Warfe,  and  warehouse  within  this  Citty." 
Each  house  was  required  to  provide  a  man  to  help  in  the 
work,  "  Or  On  Default  the  Owners  or  Inhabitants  in  Such 
houses  or  warehouses  to  Pay  2s  3d  Each  tyme  they  Omitt 
the  Same."  2 

We  find,  under  date  of  October  19,  1685,  that  the  mayor 
and  common  council  resolved  to  save  themselves  a  deal  of 
trouble  by  having  the  "  Dockmony  be  lett  to  farme  to  the 
Highest  Bidder  on  this  day  Seven  night  att  the  Signe  of  the 
three  Marriners  about  five  in  the  afternoon."  We  may 
infer  from  a  record  about  two  years  later  that  Jarvis  Mar- 
shall got  the  job  by  bidding  fifty  pounds  for  the  year.4 

It  is  worth  observing  that  the  porters  of  the  city  at  this 
time  were  influential  enough  with  the  city  fathers  to  evoke 
an  order  (July  20,  1686)  prohibiting  negro  or  Indian 
slaves  "  to  worke  on  the  bridge  Weighhouse  and  Markett 
house  of  this  Citty  about  the  goods  of  their  Respective 
Masters  there  lyeing  or  being." 

Everything  went  along  smoothly  for  over  two  years,  be- 

1  Mayor's  Court  Minutes,  op.  cit.  2M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  153. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  172.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  192. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  i  So. 


II3]  THE  DOCK  II3 

cause  the  work  that  had  been  done  on  the  dock  in  1684 
evidently  made  repairs  unnecessary.  The  winter  of  1687-8, 
however,  damaged  the  dock,  and  the  common  council  at  its 
meeting  of  February  26,  1688,  ordered  "that  Alderman  Kipp 
&  Balltas  Byard  doe  take  Care  for  ye  Reparation  of  ye 
Wharf  e  that  the  Same  may  bee  ffinished  by  the  first  of  May  & 
ye  Charges  to  Bee  paid  Out  of  ye  Citty  Tresury."  x  The 
ravages  of  wind  and  weather  are  again  apparent  in  the 
minute  of  March  16,  1689.  Alderman  Kipp  and  Baltus 
Bayard  report  that  they  have  let  the  dock  again  to  Marshall, 
but  now  "  for  the  terme  of  three  yeares  at  £25  per  annim  " 
—only  half  as  much  as  before.  Now,  however,  he  must 
"  keep  the  Said  Docke  in  good  and  Sufficient  repaire." 
A  fortnight  later  a  formal  lease  of  the  dock  was  "  Signed 
and  Delivered  by  the  Mayor  in  Common  Council  in  behalfe 
of  himselfe  and  the  rest."  3 

The  storms  of  the  autumn  season  worked  their  mischief 
and  Marshall  apparently  disliked  to  part  with  any  of  his 
revenue  for  repairs  until  he  was  compelled  to  do  so.  The 
common  council  then  felt  the  advantage  of  its  lease  and 
declared : 

Whereas  ye  dock  is  much  out  of  repair  &  defective  in  sundry 
Places  which  the  present  dok  master  Jarvis  marshall  is  in- 
gaged  to  maintaine  at  his  owne  charge  acording  to  agreement, 
therefore  Ordered  that  Said  Jarvis  Marshall  forthwith  repaire 
ye  same  Acording  [to]  said  agreement  &  by  neglect  to  Be 
Lyable  to  such  fines  as  ye  Comon  Council  shall  Impose  upon 
him.4 

This  order  would  appear  to  have  had  the  necessary  effect, 
for  we  hear  nothing  more  regarding  the  dock  until  October 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  194.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  203. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  203.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  210. 


H4 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 


15,  1691,  when  Marshall's  three  years  lease  was  drawing 
to  a  close.  The  council  on  that  date  ordered  that  Alderman 
William  Merritt  and  Alderman  Brandt  Schuyler,  Mr. 
Ebenezer  Willson  and  Mr.  Thomas  Clarke  be  a  committee 
to  treat  with  Marshall,  "  about  Letting  the  Dock  and  to 
make  their  Returne  on  Tuesday  next  at  the  first  Bell  Ring- 
ing after  the  ajournment  of  the  Mayors  Court."  1  The  dock 
was  bringing  in  a  good  revenue  and  both  the  common  coun- 
cil and  the  dock  master  knew  it.  The  latter  offered  £10 
more  per  annum  to  retain  the  position.  This  was  reported 
by  "Alderman  Skuyler  who  at  the  same  time  sayd  Thomas 
Clarke  would  give  £40."  The  opinion  of  the  board  was 
that  the  position  was  worth  still  more;  "wherefore  they 
appoint  that  they  2  be  Exposed  to  a  Publyck  Outcry  att  the 
house  of  Mr.  William  Merritt  on  the  sixth  day  of  November 
next  Ensueing  and  that  Proclamacon  be  made  of  the  Same 
One  to  Sett  up  att  the  Bridge  one  att  the  Citty  hall  and  one 
att  Brookland."  3 

We  should  certainly  say  today  that  Marshall  "  had  a  pull  " 
with  the  board,  for  this  order  was  never  carried  out,  as  is 
shown  by  a  subsequent  minute  of  the  same  session. 

After  the  Wrighting  of  the  above  order  Mr.  Jervais  Mar- 
shall appearing  and  offering  forty-five  pounds  per  annum  for 
three  yeares  next  Ensueing  and  keep  the  Dock  in  Sufficient 
repaire  his  Tenders  is  accordingly  accepted  he  paying  his  rent 
each  halfe  yeare  and  that  a  Lease  be  drawne  Accordingly.4 

If  our  suspicions  were  in  any  way  aroused  by  this  last  min- 
ute, we  should  feel  sure  that  this  official  had  much  influence 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  250.  This  minute  also  shows  that  the  mayor's 
court  after  adjournment  became  at  once,  on  the  ringing  of  a  bell,  a 
session  of  the  common  council. 

2  The  disposal  of  the  ferry  privilege  was  acted  upon  at  the  same  time. 

».V.  C.  C..  vol.  i,  p.  252  (October  20,  1691).  *Ibid. 


1 1 5]  THE  DOCK  II5 

with  the  members  of  the  common  council,  when  we  read 
about  six  months  later  that  Dockmaster  Marshall  reports 
"  the  Dock  being  broke  downe  and  much  out  of  repaire  by 
last  Extremity  of  Weather,"  and  "  himself e  uncapable  of 
repayreing  the  Same."  1  What  says  the  board?  "  We  in- 
cline to  allow  him  Some  part  of  the  charge  according  as 
we  shall  see  his  disbursments  when  he  hath  put  the  same 
into  good  repayre." 

Jarvis  must  have  been  in  the  "  lobby  "  with  his  ear  at 
the  keyhole  listening  with  displeasure,  judging  by  a  subse- 
quent record  of  the  same  meeting. 

Againe  Jervais  Marshall  appearing  .  .  .  the  Comon  Councill 
have  agreed  to  repaire  the  one  Side  of  the  Said  Wharfe  at  the 
Cittys  charge  and  Jervais  Marshall  is  to  repaire  and  compleate 
the  other  Side  in  the  same  forme  and  as  Substantially  in  all 
points  as  the  Citty  Shall  repayre  and  finish  their  side.2 

We  are  compelled  to  believe  that  this  close-fisted  and  slippery 
dock  master  had  not  completed  his  job  as  late  as  August  28, 
1694,  because  a  committee  of  the  common  council  was  named 
on  that  day  to  "  discourse  with  Jarvis  Marshall  about  finish- 
ing his  wharfe."  The  first  preparations  were  made  at  the 
same  meeting  for  letting  the  dock  at  the  expiration  of 
Marshall's  term.3 

Some  boats  had  evaded  dockage  fees  by  running  into 
Smith's  Fly.4  An  ordinance  of  August  28,  1694.  required 
that  they  "  pay  the  Same  Rates  as  if  they  Came  into  the 
Citty  Dock  and  to  be  for  ye  benefitt  of  the  farmer  of  the 
Said  Dock."  The  same  ordinance  again  appears  among 

1  Af.  C  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  274.  '2  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  274. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  358. 

*  Or  "  Vly,''  a  name  applied  to  a  "slip''  or  beaching  place  for  boats 
farther  up  on  the  East  -River  shore. 

b .!/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  358. 


H6        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [ZI6 

the  "  Conditions  and  Regulations  for  farming  the  dock," 
in  the  minutes  of  September  28,  1694.  The  term  was  now 
to  be  seven  years  instead  of  three.  Before  the  first  day  of 
the  following  May  the  wharves  of  the  dock  must  be  placed  in 
good  repair  and  be  kept  in  good  condition  throughout  the 
seven  years.  The  incumbent  must  pay  to  the  city  treasurer 
the  amount  he  had  bid  in  quarterly  payments.  He  must  also 
give  security  satisfactory  to  the  city  magistrates.1  Proc- 
lamation was  straightway  made  that  everybody  had  free 
liberty  to  bid.  "  Several  Persons  Appeared  and  made  there 
offers,  but  Mr.  Thomas  Clarke  [the  unsuccessful  bidder  of 
three  years  before]  having  bid  fourty  pounds  per  Annum 
and  being  the  highest  bidder  itt  is  Order'd  that  the  Same 
be  Accordingly  Demised  to  him." 

It  is  at  this  point,  therefore,  that  Jarvis  Marshall  retires 
from  the  position  he  has  held  for  nine  years.  It  is  evident 
that  failure  to  keep  the  dock  in  repair  was  not  the  only  fault 
of  Marshall  that  caused  annoyance  to  the  city  fathers.  At 
least  £45  remained  due  from  him  to  the  city  and  it  led  to 
an  action  against  him  in  the  mayor's  court  in  1696.  He 
petitioned  the  court,  "  praying  that  he  May  have  further 
time  for  ye  payment  thereof  And  that  the  Action  may  be 
withdrawn."  This  petition  was  rejected.  The  petitioner 
had  been  named  city  "  Cryer  &  Merchall  "  in  i683,4  but  is 
not  spoken  of  as  receiving  any  salary  until  June  9,  1697. 5 
Perhaps  the  city  was  recovering  what  was  due  by  with- 
holding his  salary  up  to  that  time.6  Increase  of  shipping 
called  for  a  forty-five  foot  extension  of  the  bridge  in  1696, 
the  same  "to  be  Carried  out  twenty  foot  further  into  the 
Dock  than  ye  Stockadoes  are  now  laid  And  then  to  turn 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  364.  2  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  365. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  401.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  109. 

5  Ibid.  vol.  ii,  p.  9. 
0  See  ch.  viii,  p.  190,  for  more  about  Marshall  in  his  old  age. 


THE  DOCK 

South  East  Easterly  twenty  five  foot  more."  *  This  ex- 
tension had  not  been  finished  six  months  later,  because  a 
committee  was  ordered  (June  9,  1697)  to  find  "  what  Sum 
will  be  wanting  to  finish  ye  bridge."  At  the  next  meet- 
ing it  was  resolved  to  raise  £120  for  this  purpose,  and  £60 
for  "  making  Convenient  the  Slip  att  the  end  of  the  broad 
Street." 

In  the  closing  years  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  city 
fathers  were  much  occupied  with  arrangements  for  the  con- 
struction of  a  new  city  hall,  and  the  new  dockmaster  and  the 
dock  came  in  for  less  attention.  Thomas  Clarke,  however, 
could  not  have  been  an  ideal  city  servant,  for  the  "  foulness  " 
of  the  dock  is  alluded  to  three  times  in  the  minutes.3  In 
the  last  mentioned  minute  it  is  ordered  that  care  be  taken, 
"  that  the  farmers  doe  forthwith  performe  the  Conditions 
they  are  Obliged  to  Otherwise  that  they  make  Satisfaction 
for  their  Defect."  As  a  result,  when  the  new  conditions  for 
farming  the  dock  were  made,  April  13,  1700,  to  the  stipula- 
tions on  former  occasions  was  added  the  requirement  that 
the  farmer  "  Shall  att  his  Own  proper  Cost  and  charge  well 
and  Sufficiently  Clean  the  said  Dock  &  Slip  in  the  Dock  of 
all  the  Mudd  &  filth  therein  Soe  deep  as  till  they  finde  A 
sandy  Bottom  and  .  .  .  Keep  the  same  Clean."  He  was, 
furthermore,  to  keep  the  wharves  enclosing  the  dock  in 
good  repair  to  the  expiration  of  his  lease.4  The  cleansing 
the  dock  of  its  "  foulness  "  was  regarded  as  no  light  task, 
because  it  is  further  stated  in  the  conditions  of  the  lease  that 
the  farmer  may  receive  the  next  six  quarterly  payments 
amounting  to  £60  "  to  dispose  of  towards  the  Cleaning." 

On  these  more  stringent  conditions  the  "  Docks  and  Slips 
on  ye  I3th  day  of  April  1700  was  demised  to  Mr.  Phillip 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  432.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  9. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  80,  97,  101-2.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  104-5. 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [ng 

French  for  the  Revenue  of  fourty  pounds  per  Annum."  1 
About  a  month  later  Thomas  Clarke  (whose  term  was  not 
to  expire  until  November  1701)  was  reported  to  be  in  ar- 
rears for  his  rent.  He  was  allowed  till  June  i  to  pay  up.2 
French,  the  new  incumbent,  was  elected  alderman  of  the 
Dock  Ward  in  the  fall  of  1701  3  and,  probably,  further  politi- 
cal ambitions — he  was  appointed  mayor  the  next  year — 
led  him,  for  a  consideration  of  £5,  to  relinquish  his  lease  of 
the  dock  after  a  few  months.4  He  did  not  actually  get  his 
money  until  two  days  before  Christmas  1702.  On  May 
26,  1702,  a  committee  of  the  board  reported  that  they  had 
farmed  the  docks  and  slips  to  James  Spencer  for  the  sum  of 
£25. 5  This  is  a  lower  bid  than  usual,  because  the  farmer 
was  required  within  the  space  of  eighteen  months  to  build 
the  wharves  eighteen  inches  higher  and  cause  them  to  be 
"  well  Loaded  with  Ballast  Gravell  or  Stones."  He  was 
also  required  to  fix  eight  "  substantial  "  posts  in  the  wharf 
about  forty  feet  apart,  in  order  that  vessels  might  careen. 
A  further  stipulation  made  repairs  necessary  "  soe  often 
as  he  Shall  be  thereunto  Required  by  the  said  Mayor 
Alderman  and  Commonalty."  6 

Dockmaster  Spencer  was  not  long  in  making  the  ac- 
quaintance of  some  elusive  skippers.  The  next  month  after 
he  assumed  his  new  office  (he  had  previously  been  high 
constable)  he  reported  "  that  sundry  Boats  frequently  Come 
into  the  Dock  &  Slips  of  this  Citty  and  the  Masters  thereof 
Refuse  to  pay  unto  him  the  Customary  Rates  for  Dockage  & 
that  before  he  can  gett  the  Mayors  Officer  to  summon  them 
before  the  Mayor  to  Cause  them  to  make  payment  as  Afore- 
said they  weigh  Anchor  and  are  gone."  He  was  author- 

1  .If.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  105.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  106. 

s  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  157.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  190. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  191.  6  Ibid. ,  vol.  ii,  p.  192. 
''Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  197-8. 


119]  THE  DOCK  I19 

ized  to  attach  and  bring  before  the  mayor  any  persons  in- 
debted to  him  for  dockage.  Even  with  this  support  from 
the  authorities  Spencer  tired  of  his  agreement,  and  on  No- 
vember 6,  1703,  appeared  before  the  common  council  to 
surrender  his  lease.  Evidently  he  had  neither  paid  the  city 
the  promised  rental  nor  met  the  terms  of  his  lease  in  other 
respects,  pleading  "  Very  poor  Circumstances  Occasioned  by 
sickness  and  Other  Misfortunes."  Two  men  who  were 
his  sureties  were  called  upon  to  pay  the  corporation  the  sum 
of  £60. l 

John  Ellison,  whose  previous  experience  had  been  as  lessee 
of  the  market  house,  was  the  next  one  to  whom  the  docks 
and  slips  were  farmed.  The  conditions  seemed  favorable, 
as  he  was  to  pay  "  one  pepper  Corne  "  per  year  for  the  first 
three  years  and  £25  annually  for  the  six  years  thereafter,2 
but  he  failed  to  agree  with  the  common  council's  committee 
concerning  the  details  of  the  lease.3 

No  doubt  the  dock  revenue  had  been  affected  by  the 
war.  English  vessels  knew  the  danger  from  their  French 
and  Spanish  foes  on  the  sea.  Shortly  before  this  the  com- 
mon council  had  voted  to  recognize  by  a  bonfire,  with  ten 
gallons  of  wine  and  a  barrel  of  beer,  "  the  great  and  signal 
Victory  Obtain'd  by  her  Majesty's  fleet  and  forces  Against 
the  French  &  Spaniards  att  Vigo  in  Spain."  4 

Next  we  find  for  the  first  time  "  farmers  "  in  combination. 
Lancaster  Symes,  merchant,  Gerrett  Vanhorne,  bolter,  and 
Christopher  Denne,  carpenter,  were  the  trio.0  Their  term 
was  to  be  twelve  years.  For  the  first  three  years  they  were 
to  pay  one  peppercorn  rent  and  for  the  remaining  nine,  £30 
yearly.  They  were  to  receive  all  clock  revenues,  including 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  246.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  247-8. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  250. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  227,  February  24,  1703.  r>  Ibid. ,  vol.  ii.  p.  250. 


120        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [I2Q 

such  from  as  many  cranes  as  they  might  erect.  But  they 
were  called  upon  to  clear  away  the  dock  "  mudd  "  down  to 
that  "  Sandy  foundation  "  previously  described,  and  to  raise 
the  height  of  the  wharf  one  and  one  half  feet — a  previous 
condition  still  unfulfilled.  Also  they  were  to  construct  a 
sewer  "  from  the  fish  Bridge  to  the  Other  Common  sewer  in 
the  broad  Street,"  to  be  finished  the  following  June.1 

Messrs.  Symes,  Vanhorne  and  Denne  made  haste  to  get 
the  same  authority  from  the  court  that  James  Spencer  had 
been  granted,  namely,  to  take  and  bring  before  the  mayor 
"  any  person  or  persons  who  is  indebted  unto  them  for 
Dockage."  2  Vanhorne  soon  retired  from  the  combination 
and  the  lease  was  changed  accordingly.3  Two  or  three  men 
proved  no  better  than  one  for  the  work.  Scarcely  a  year 
had  passed  when  an  investigating  committee  reported,  "  that 
all  along  the  Dock  is  Very  Dirty  and  several  heaps  of  Stones 
&  Trash  on  itt  which  with  the  Rain  is  Carryed  into  the 
Dock."  4  And  previously,  on  complaint  of  several  inhabi- 
tants, the  lessees  were  ordered  to  clear  a  cart-way  on  the 
west  side  of  the  dock  that  was  "  stopt  up  and  Incumbred  with 
Masts  and  Timber,"  upon  pain  of  being  prosecuted  for 
maintaining  "A  Nusance." 

Another  committee,  reporting  June  4,  1708,  found  "the 
Dock  not  Cleansed  According  to  the  Lessees  Agreement." 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Christopher  Denne  occupied  a 
seat  in  the  common  council  at  this  time.  When  action  was 
finally  brought,  it  was  directed  against  Lancaster  Symes, 
"  one  of  the  Lessee's  "  ~  and  not  against  both,  which  is  also 
interesting. 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  250.  '*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  257. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  278.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  294. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  286-7.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  359- 
'Ibid.,    vol.  ii,  pp.  442-3. 


12 1  ]  THE  DOCK  I2i 

The  preliminary  to  this  action  came,  November  29,  1 709, 
when  Aldermen  Smith,  Thong  and  Bayard,  and  Mr.  De 
Peyster  were  ordered  "  to  discourse  the  Lessees  of  the 
Dock  about  the  Non  performance  of  their  Covenants 
in  not  Cleaning  of  the  Dock  &c :  to  know  their  Reasons 
for  their  Neglect  thereof  and  to  make  Report  thereof 
to  the  next  Common  Council."  Not  only  that,  but  the 
treasurer  was  to  "  Attend  them  to  demand  the  Arrears 
of  Rent  due  for  the  same  Dock."  1  On  March  7, 
1712,  shortly  before  this  trial  was  to  come  off  Cap- 
tain Symes  appeared  before  the  magistrates,  offered  to 
surrender  the  lease  on  certain  conditions  and  requested  that 
his  trial  be  put  off  till  the  June  term.2  This  was  allowed 
and  a  committee  was  appointed  to  confer  with  the  lessees 
and,  "  also  to  Inspect  in  what  Condition  the  Docks  and 
Wharfs  are  and  on  what  Terms  the  same  may  be  again 
demised  most  beneficial  to  the  publick."  Subsequently  the 
committee  reported,  recommending  that  Captain  Symes  be 
allowed  to  receive  all  the  profits  of  the  dock  and  slips 
until  November  i  following,  and  that  the  suit  against  the 
lessees  be  dropped  on  condition  that  they  "  do  well  &  suffi- 
ciently Repair  the  Breaches  of  the  Wharfs  made  in  the  late 
Storm,"  and  pay  to  the  city  £20  in  full  satisfaction  of 
all  dues.4 

Again  the  agreement  was  not  kept.  An  order  of  March 
3.  1/13,  had  no  effect.  Finally,  four  months  later,  Symes 
was  compelled  to  file  with  the  corporation  a  bond  for  £50 
to  repair  the  wharves  before  September  i,  and  the  lease 
was  cancelled,5  Anthony  Ham  having  in  the  meantime  been 
appointed  dock  master.  We  are  not  surprised,  after  all 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  390-1.  z  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  4. 

*lbid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  4.  4lbid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  9. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  iii.  p.  38. 


122        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [I22 

these  troubles  with  the  dock  farmers,  that  the  common  coun- 
cil now  adopted  a  different  policy.  Anthony  Ham  was  "  to 
Collect  and  Receive  all  the  Revenue  of  the  Dock  and  Slips 
and  Account  to  this  Corporation  for  the  same  as  often  as 
he  shall  be  thereunto  Required."  His  salary  was  fixed  at 
£30  per  year.2  Ham  continued  as  dock  master  until  1728. 
Everything  went  well  for  a  while  and  then  be  became  care- 
less about  his  collections.  He  was  ordered  to  collect  dock 
and  crane  arrears,  under  threat  of  being  discharged  and 
sued  at  law.3  Apparently  such  arrears  did  not  have  the 
personal  interest  for  a  salaried  official,  like  Mr.  Ham,  that 
they  had  had  for  lessees  of  the  dock. 

There  appears  to  have  been  so  much  dissatisfaction  that 
finally  a  committee  was  ordered  to  "  Recommend  some 
proper  Person  to  be  the  Dock  master  of  this  City  in  the 
Room  of  Mr.  Anthony  Ham  and  that  they  also  Call  the 
Said  Anthony  Ham  to  Account  for  the  Profitts  of  the  Crane 
Dock  and  Slips  during  his  Exerciseing  that  Office."  4  A 
subsequent  order  (July  27,  1728)  was,  "  that  he  do  not  pre- 
sume (at  his  Perill)  to  Receive  any  more  of  the  Rents  or 
Profitts  of  the  same  Crane  Dock  or  Slips."  Later,  when 
Mr.  Ham's  accounts  were  audited,  no  less  than  £225  18 
was  reported  as  due  for  dockage.  In  addition  to  that 
£19  6  8  was  reported  as  having  been  collected,  but  not 
handed  over  to  the  city.9 

So  we  see  that  the  city  was  regularly  defrauded,  which- 
ever system  was  employed,  in  the  management  of  its  dock 
and  wharves.  If  the  revenues  were  let  out  by  contract, 
Father  Knickerbocker  would  find  his  dock  intolerably  foul, 
his  wharves  all  going  to  pieces,  his  rental  money  withheld. 

Mf.  C.  C.,  vol.  iii,  p.  35.  -Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  83. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  387-8.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  441. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  444.  6Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  472. 


123]  THE  DOCK  123 

If  the  haven  master  was  appointive  and  salaried,  he  would 
collect  dockage,  if  convenient,  and  turn  it  over  to  the  city, 
if  he  had  to.  Ship  masters  enjoyed  the  presence  of  the 
salaried  official,  of  course.  When  the  city  once  more  re- 
verted to  the  old  system,  in  1725,  it  is  worth  noting  that 
the  successful  bidder  went  as  high  as  £83  lo.1 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  248. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  FERRIES 

WHEN  the  city  magistrates  were  devising  ways  and  means, 
in  1683,  "  To  Enable  them  to  deffray  their  publick  Charge 
&  expence  and  maintaine  their  publicke  works,"  they  peti- 
tioned Governor  Dongan  for  the  "  benefitt "  of  "  ye  fferry 
now  between  ye  said  Citty  &  Long  Island,  or  that  hereafter 
shall  be  appointed  between  ye  said  Citty  and  Corporation 
or  any  other  place."  1 

There  had  been  a  petition  to  the  governor  a  month 
earlier,  requesting  that  former  privileges  and  liberties  be 
confirmed  with  certain  additions.  Hence,  in  making  an- 
swer, the  governor  "  much  wondred  ...  he  should  so  sud- 
denly Receive  another  petition,"  but  the  request  was  granted 
with  the  understanding  that  two  boats  for  passengers  and 
one  boat  for  cattle  be  kept  on  each  side  of  the  river;  also 
"  Xo  fferry  in  any  other  place  alowed  but  what  is  already."  2 
Two  months  later  (February  23,  1684)  the  ferry  was  one 
of  the  matters  concerning  which  a  committee  was  appointed 
by  the  common  council  to  confer  with  the  governor.3  At 
this  time  the  history  of  ferries  as  a  municipal  institution 
commences. 

This  concession  to  the  city  was  really  a  remarkable  one, 
more  to  the  city's  advantage,  probably,  than  any  thing 
else  later  included  in  the  Dongan  charter.  Peter  Stuyvesant 
had  no  such  generous  heart  in  1656,  when  the  burgomasters 

M/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  1 10.  'Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  in. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  121. 

124  [124 


THE  FERRIES 

sought  the  revenue  from  the  ferry.1  Three  hundred  guild- 
ers a  year — the  rent  paid  by  the  ferryman,  Egbert  Van 
Borsum,  in  1658'- — was  a  bit  of  revenue  that  he  did  not 
propose  to  hand  over  to  any  one  else.  To  Stuyvesant  and 
subsequent  governors,  both  English  and  Dutch,  up  to 
Dongan's  time,  a  ferry  was  looked  upon  as  a  part  of  the 
land  system  and  as  such  controlled  by  the  provincial  gov- 
ernment. 

Who  the  first  municipal  ferryman  was  and  how  much  he 
paid  the  city  for  his  privilege,  we  cannot  ascertain  with 
certainty.  This  much,  however,  we  know.  William  Mer- 
ritt  appeared  before  the  mayor,  aldermen  and  common 
council,  February  23,  1684,  and  expressed  a  desire  to  lease 
the  ferry  to  Long  Island  for  twenty  years,  at  £20  per  year. 
He  promised  to  build  ferry  houses  on  each  side  and  have 
two  boats  for  cattle  and  horses,  which  he  would  transport 
for  six  pence  per  head;  and  two  others  for  passengers, 
whom  he  would  carry  for  a  penny  apiece.3  At  the  same 
meeting  a  committee  of  three  aldermen  was  appointed  "  to 
Examaine  the  Orders  And  Regulacon  Relating  to  the  Ferry 
to  Long  Island."  They  were  to  arrange  for  the  leasing  of 
the  same  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  mayor,  to  draw 
up  suitable  orders  and  fix  rates  for  passage.4  This  com- 
mittee reported  a  week  later,  that  they  could  find  no  former 
ferry  regulations;  also  that  "the  Present  fery  man  is  De- 
sirous to  Leave  itt."  Three  new  members  were  added  to 
the  former  committee  and  a  report  requested  at  the  next 
meeting,5  at  which  postponement  was  again  made.  Regula- 
tions made  by  this  committee  are  reported  as  having  been 
approved  on  March  15,  1684,  but  the  regulations  themselves 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  ii,  p.  217.  2  A'.  V.  Col.  Ifss.,  vol.  viii,  p.  771. 

'M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  123.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  123. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  127. 


126        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [I26 

are  not  recorded.  The  question  of  a  ferryman  was  still 
hanging  fire,  William  Merritt  being  ordered  "  to  Consider 
About  the  fferry  And  give  his  Answer,  in  writeing  to  the 
Mayor  On  Tuesday  next."  1  If  Cornelius  Steenwyck's  cor- 
respondence had  been  preserved,  we  should  probably  know 
what  William  Merritt  said.  It  is  rather  reasonable  to  pre- 
sume that  the  committee  wanted  him  to  accept  the  lease  for  a 
shorter  term  than  twenty  years  and  to  pay  more  than  £20 
per  year.  Probably  the  seven  year  limit  of  lease  was  de- 
cided on  and  probably  William  Morris  received  the  appoint- 
ment. In  justification  of  these  two  presumptions  a  record 
of  just  seven  years  later  may  be  cited,  in  which  a  com- 
mittee of  the  common  council  was  ordered  "  to  Treat  with 
Mr.  Morris  about  Letting  ye  ferry."  2  Also,  Mr.  Morris  is 
alluded  to  subsequently  as  "  late  keeper  of  the  fferry." 

October  20,  1691  was  the  day  appointed  for  the  above- 
mentioned  Committee  to  bring  in  their  returns,  and  it  was 
reported  that  John  Arientsen  had  offered  "  one  hundred 
pounds  yearly  for  Seven  yeares  "  for  the  ferry.  The  board 
decided  that  the  offer  was  too  small  and  planned  to  dispose 
of  the  matter  at  a  "  Publyck  Outcry,"  November  sixth.4  At 
this  sale  competition  forced  Arientsen  to  increase  his  former 
bid  by  forty-seven  pounds  per  year,  rent  to  be  paid  quarterly. 
He  was  to  have  a  lease  for  seven  years,  beginning  March 
25,  i692.5 

On  the  23rd  of  January  a  bond  for  one  year  was  placed 
in  the  mayor's  hands,  and  this  was  brought  up  before  a  full 
council,  on  February  4,  for  their  approval.  They  decided 
that  Derrick  Amerman  and  John  Alberson  were  sufficient 
security  for  the  first  year,  and  empowered  the  mayor  to 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  133.  2  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  250. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  268.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  252. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  253. 


127]  THE  FERRIES  127 

judge  as  to  the  security  for  the  second  year.  Security  for 
two  years  and  his  bond  for  finding  the  security  for  five  en- 
suing years  were  to  be  sufficient  guarantee  to  secure  the  lease. 
At  the  same  meeting  the  treasurer  was  ordered  to  pay  the 
clerk  one  pound,  four  shillings  for  drawing  the  lease.1  Be- 
fore the  meeting  adjourned  the  lessee  appeared  with  se- 
curity for  the  second  year  and  the  ferry  lease  was  delivered 
to  him.2 

On  March  30,  1692,  Col.  Stephanus  van  Cortlandt  and  Col. 
Nicholas  Bayard  were  nominated  on  behalf  of  the  city,  and 
James  Graham  and  William  Nicolls  were  appointed  by  Wil- 
liam Morris,  the  ferryman  before  mentioned,  to  "  View  and 
appraise  the  house  and  barn  belonging  to  the  fferry,  said 
parties  in  case  of  disagreement  to  choose  an  umpire  for  final 
decision."  3 

On  May  6,  1692,  the  treasurer  was  ordered  to  pay  Air. 
Morris  £100,  part  of  the  money  due  him  for  the  "  houses 
on  the  other  side."  4  At  the  following  meeting  the  "  Houses 
and  Barne  at  the  fferry  are  lett  together  with  the  little  house 
on  this  Side  to  John  Arientsen,"  for  nine  pounds  per  year. 
He  must  keep  them  in  repair.5 

Arientsen  soon  had  trouble  with  private  competition  from 
Derrick  Janzen,  Cornelius  Seabrook  and  others  who,  he  com- 
plained to  the  mayor,  made  a  daily  practice  of  bringing  over 
corn  from  Long  Island  to  the  city.  A  fine  of  twenty  shill- 
ings was  laid  for  each  such  offence.6  A  year's  trial  of  his 
business  as  farmer  of  the  ferry  convinced  Arientsen  that 
he  was  paying  too  much,  and  upon  petition  to  the  common 
council  the  rental  for  house  and  ferry  was  reduced  to  £140 
per  year,  from  the  25th  of  June,  i693.7 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  263.  5  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  264. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  268.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  275. 

''Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  275.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  276. 
1 1bid.,  vol.  i,  p.  325. 


I28        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [I28 

The  need  of  money  to  carry  on  certain  repairs  for  the 
defence  of  the  city  caused  the  common  council  to  mortgage 
the  ferry  for  three  years  as  security  for  £200,  on  April  13, 
1694.  *  On  May  n,  the  "  Ingrossed  "  mortgage  for  two 
years  was  read  and  approved.  It  was  originally  planned 
to  have  the  mortgage  for  three  years,  but  this  was  changed  to 
two.2  It  is  most  important  to  realize  that  we  have  here 
the  primitive  method  employed  by  our  city  for  securing 
money  that  was  immediately  necessary.  Here  was  an  en- 
grossed ferry  lease  for  seven  years,  whose  face  value  was 
about  £1000,  and  which  was  a  security  similar  to  a  deed  of 
land,  though,  to  be  sure,  somewhat  more  precarious.  In  order 
to  get  ready  money,  the  city  had  to  find  some  individual  of 
means  who  could  advance  the  needed  amount — £200  in  the 
case  alluded  to — holding  the  lease  as  security  for  the  same. 
In  this  case  the  minutes  tell  us  that  the  interest  on  the  £200 
for  two  years  was  £33  5,  revealing  a  rate  of  something 
over  eight  per  cent.  This  sum  was  included  in  the  mort- 
gage, which  amounted,  therefore,  to  £233  5.3 

Enough  money  would  come  in  quarterly,  if  the  ferryman 
lived  up  to  his  contract,  to  pay  back  that  amount  within  the 
two-year  period  of  the  mortgage.  The  aforementioned 
mortgage  had  barely  lapsed  (June  26,  1696),  when  plans 
were  under  way  to  mortgage  it  again,  this  time  for  fifteen 
years.  The  money  so  obtained  was  to  be  used  toward 
helping  to  build  a  city  hall  and  a  powder  house.4  Accord- 
ing to  a  later  record  (January  n,  1699)  the  money  from 
the  ferry  was  limited  to  the  building  of  the  new  city  hall.5 
Near  the  time  of  the  expiration  of  the  seven  years  of  John 
Arientsen's  lease  the  council  took  action  regarding  his  suc- 
cessor. On  October  17,  1698,  a  committee  was  appointed 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  352.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  354. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  355.  4Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  410. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  67. 


129]  THE  FERRIES  129 

to  "  Examine  into  the  State  of  the  ferry  And  to  Agree  on 
the  best  Conditions  for  the  farming  the  Same  on  the  twenty 
fifth  day  of  March  Next  And  that  they  take  to  their  As- 
sistance A  Bricklayer  and  A  Carpenter  and  Examine  What 
will  be  Convenient  for  the  Rebuilding  or  Repairing  of  the 
ferry  house."  l  The  committee  reported,  on  November  2, 
that  the  ferry  house  was  "  Soe  far  gone  to  decay  ''  that  re- 
pairs were  futile;  also,  that  they  had  received  some  pro- 
posals for  farming  the  same.  The  committee  was  ordered 
to  treat  with  the  candidates  "  On  ye  Most  Advantagious 
Terms  for  the  Citty." 

On  January  n,  1699,  the  common  council  ordered  that  a 
placard  give  notice  that,  on  February  2,  at  the  city  hall,  the 
ferry  would  be  let  for  seven  years,  beginning  March  25,  and 
that  the  conditions  might  be  seen  at  the  mayor's  house.3 
These  conditions  are  printed  in  the  minutes  for  February  2, 
1699.  They  include,  as  before,  requirements  that  the 
farmer  provide  security  and  make  quarterly  payments ;  and 
that  he  furnish  two  boats  for  carrying  cattle  and  freight, 
and  two  for  passengers.  By  additional  stipulation  the  great 
boats  for  freight  were  to  be  kept,  one  on  each  side  of  the 
river,  and  the  passenger  boats  were  to  be  constantly  passing 
to  and  fro  and  never  both  to  stay  on  the  same  ^ide.  They 
were  to  be  rowed  by  "  good  and  able  men." 

Several  new  conditions  were  itemized : 

The  farmer  must  keep  a  pound,  with  sufficient  ropes  etc.. 
in  which  the  cattle  for  transfer  may  be  kept  when  necessary; 
there  must  also  be  a  place  for  corn. 

lie  must  keep  a  public  house  for  the  accommodation  of 
strangers  and  travellers  in  the  stone  and  brick  ferry  house 
which  the  city  is  to  build,  and  this  he  must  keep  in  repair. 
The  city  is  also  to  repair  the  barn,  for  the  care  of  which  the 
fanner  is  to  be  responsible. 

1  M.  C.  C..  vol.  ii,  p.  63.  ''Ibid.,  \ol.  ii,  n.  64. 

3 Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  67. 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

Definite  ferry  rates  were  fixed  as  follows : 

Every  single  person  to  pay  for  going  Over  Eight  Stivers  in 
Wampum  or  A  Silver  two  pence. 

Each  person  in  Company  four  Stivers  in  Wampum  or  A 
Silver  penny ;  if  after  sun  Sett,  double  ferriage. 

Each  horse  or  beast  Single  One  Shiling,  in  Company  Nine 
pence. 

Each  Colt  or  Calfe  three  pence. 

Each  Hog  eight  Stivers  in  Wampum  or  A  Silver  two  pence. 

Each  Sheep  four  Stivers  Wampum  or  A  Silver  penny. 

Each  Barrell  of  Rum  Sugar  Molasses  Oyle  Pork  &c. : 
three  pence. 

Each  Empty  Barrell  four  Stivers  Wampum  or  A  Silver 
penny. 

A  Beasts  hide  the  like. 

A  Firkin  or  Tub  of  Butter  two  Stivers  Wampum. 

Every  three  Bushell  of  Corne  A  Silver  penny  or  four 
Stivers  of  Wampum. 

A  Pale  of  Butter  two  Stivers. 

Every  Bushel  of  Salt  two  Stivers. 

Every  hogshead  of  Tobacco  Nine  pence. 

The  commodities  of  traffic  are  of  interest,  as  well  as  the 
rates,  the  latter  having  noticeably  increased  over  those  pro- 
posed in  the  early  days  of  municipal  ferriage.  For  a  single 
person  as  well  as  for  cattle  and  horses  the  rate  had  doubled 
in  that  interval. 

Mr.  Rip  Van  Dam  was  the  "  fairest  "  bidder  for  the  place 
under  the  preceding  conditions,  and  the  ferry  was  let  to 
him  on  the  day  appointed.1  Additional  ferry  business  was 
transacted  at  the  succeeding  meeting,  February  27,  1699, 
when  a  committee  was  appointed  to  superintend  repairing 
the  ferry  barn  and  to  report  upon  the  cost  of  building  the 
house.2  Subsequently  this  committee  was  instructed  to  ar- 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  70-72.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  73. 


THE  FERRIES  I3! 

range  about  material  and  men  for  the  purpose.  About 
three  weeks  later  they  reported  that  Peter  Willemse  Roome 
had  been  engaged  as  builder.1  From  the  records  of  Novem- 
ber 2,  1699,  an  estimate  of  the  money  needed  during  the 
ensuing  year  includes  £435  for  the  ferry  house.  On  Janu- 
ary 1 6,  1 700,  Roome  received  his  final  payment  of  the  above 
mentioned  sum  in  full  for  materials  and  labor  in  building 
the  house.2 

It  would  seem  that  Rip  Van  Dam,  the  lessee,  must  have 
arranged  with  John  Euwatse  to  look  after  the  ferry,  for  we 
read  in  the  record  for  September  6,  1699,  that  "What 
Money  Shall  be  disbursted  by  Air.  John  Euwatse  for  ye 
Nessessary  Repair  of  ye  Barne  and  bridge  att  ye  Ferry  be 
Allowed  to  him  On  Acct  &  that  A  Well  be  made  and  the 
Ground  belonging  to  the  Citty  be  Inclosed  within  fence."  3 

Euwatse,  like  his  predecessors,  evidently  had  difficulty  in 
the  execution  of  his  bargain,  for  we  find  him  sending  a  peti- 
tion to  the  common  council  which  appointed  a  committee 
(February  20,  1700)  to  investigate  conditions  and  see  how 
things  might  be  improved.4  No  record  is  available  regard- 
ing their  report,  but  evidently  Euwatse  was  not  satisfied, 
for  the  treasurer  was  ordered,  on  May  17,  to  demand  of 
him  his  rent  arrearages,  threatening  him  with  removal  if 
these  were  not  paid  by  the  twenty-fourth  of  June.  The 
treasurer  was  also  to  see  Van  Dam  and  demand  of  him  an 
execution  of  his  lease.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the 
dock  master's  rent  was  also  in  arrears  at  this  same  time.5 

Neither  threats  nor  orders  made  any  impression  upon  the 
ferryman,  Euwatse.  The  treasurer  reported  that  he  had 
ordered  him  to  move  out  of  the  ferry  house  by  June  twenty- 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  75-76.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  06-97. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  84.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  100. 

''Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  106. 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

fifth.1  He  gave  no  heed,  but  continued  to  ply  his  boats  and 
pocket  the  revenue.  On  August  16  he  made  bold  to 
appear  before  the  councilmen  and  again  refused  to  pay  ar- 
rearages of  rent  or  sign  the  lease,  whereupon  he  was  or- 
dered to  quit  the  ferry  house  by  the  twenty-fifth  of  Septem- 
ber.2 Again  he  snapped  his  fingers  at  the  magistrates  and 
kept  right  on  carrying  passengers  and  freight  across  the  East 
River.  Finally  the  long-suffering  board,  on  November  2, 
ordered  the  mayor  to  sue  Euwatse  for  the  rent  and  to 
"Eject  "him.3 

This  last  action  impelled  Euwatse  to  recede  somewhat 
from  his  position,  and  through  some  of  his  friends  on  the 
board  he  proposed  to  remove  from  the  ferry  on  March  25, 
1701,  and  suggested  that  all  differences  between  him  and  the 
city  be  settled  by  arbitration,  each  party  to  name  two  arbi- 
trators. In  case  the  four  did  not  agree,  they  might  "  Choose 
An  Umpire  who  Shall  finally  Determine  the  same."  The 
board  agreed  to  arbitrate,  but  was  careful  to  specify  that 
"  he  Enter  into  Bonds  of  Arbitration  of  £500  to  Abide  & 
fullfill  their  Award  and  that  neither  Mr.  Van  dam  or  any 
Attorney  be  any  of  the  Arbitrators."  4  Samuell  Staats  and 
Robert  Walters  were  named  as  arbitrators  for  the  city,  but 
at  the  next  session  of  the  common  council  the  mayor  in- 
formed them  that  those  men  refused  to  serve,  "  where- 
by the  said  difference  is  not  brought  to  A  period."  How- 
ever, Euwatse  appeared  in  person  and  offered  forthwith  to 
pay  £50,  and  £40  more  on  March  25  next,  in  full  con- 
sideration of  all  rent  due  from  him.  "  In  Witness  hereof 
the  said  John  Euwatse  hath  hereunto  put  his  hand  the  3Oth 
November  1700.  John  Ewetse."  By  the  above  quoted 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  108.  -Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  109. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  121.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  123. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  125. 


133]  THE  FERRIES  133 

record  we  are  led  to  believe  that  the  board  accepted  the 
proposition.  Arrangements  were  made  at  the  next  meeting 
to  lease  the  ferry  for  seven  years  to  the  highest  bidder, 
"  together  with  the  New  Brick  house  Barne  and  horse  pen."  1 

The  stated  conditions  for  farming  the  ferry  at  this  time 
were  the  same  as  those  published  two  years  earlier  except 
that  experience  had  suggested  that  "  the  farmer  shall  be 
Obliged  within  Eight  days  Next  Ensueing  the  Date  hereof 
to  Execute  his  Counter  parte  of  the  Lease."  The  new 
brick  house,  barn,  well,  and  "  bridge  to  Land  on  "  were  to 
be  kept  in  good  and  sufficient  repair  during  the  period  of 
lease.3  Dirck  Benson,  the  highest  bidder,  offered  £145 
per  year ;  *  but  when  the  time  came  for  him  to  sign  the  lease 
and  give  security,  he  desired  to  have  included  in  the  lease 
the  old  house  which  had  been  displaced  by  the  new  brick  house 
and  which  the  council  had  rented  to  Mayor  de  Riemer  for 
£20  per  year.  The  board  named  a  committee  to  farm  the 
ferry  again  and  resolved  to  commence  an  action  against 
Benson  for  the  damages  sustained  by  his  non-performance 
of  the  conditions  for  farming  the  ferry.5  However  a  com- 
promise was  effected,  whereby  Benson's  payment  was  re- 
duced to  £130  annually.6 

The  new  brick  house  was  completed  at  about  the  time 
Benson  became  ferry  master,  but  Euwatse  had  so  far  failed 
of  his  agreement  to  keep  the  other  buildings  in  repair  that 
the  new  incumbent  had  to  expend  £30  at  once  in  sundry 
repairs,  an  account  of  which  was  ordered  to  be  paid  by  the 
treasurer.7  The  quarterly  payment  due  the  city  remained 
the  same  uncertain  quantity  under  Benson  as  under  luiwatse, 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  127.  '•'  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  130. 

3 Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  131.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  132. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  133.  r'  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  135. 
~  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  156. 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

because  on  February  15,  1703,  after  the  treasurer  had  re- 
ported that  "  he  has  made  Many  Demands  of  Dirck  Benson 
for  the  Rent  of  the  ferry  due  from  him  to  the  Citty  which 
he  hath  Refused  to  pay  from  time  to  time,"  the  common 
council  resolved  to  proceed  against  the  ferryman  "  for  the 
Recovery  of  the  same."  1  This  resulted  in  Benson's  hand- 
ing over  £60  a  month  later.2  Ex-Mayor  de  Riemer  also 
proved  to  be  a  delinquent  in  paying  his  rent  for  the  old 
ferry  house;  the  ferry  money,  also,  that  Euwatse  owed  the 
city  when  Benson  succeeded  him  as  ferryman,  March  25, 
1701,  the  council  was  still  trying  to  get  from  him  two  years 
afterward.3 

Leniency  on  the  part  of  the  city  magistrates  was  the 
usual  rather  than  the  unusual  thing,  and  it  is  hardly  neces- 
sary to  seek  an  explanation  in  this  case  more  than  in  any 
other.  However,  the  officials  appear  to  have  understood 
why  the  ferrymen  fell  behind  in  their  rents,  as  is  shown  in 
their  petition  to  Governor  Lord  Cornbury  under  date  of 
February  15,  1703.*  They  state  that  many  people  take  the 
liberty  of 

Transporting  themselves  and  goods  to  and  from  the  said 
Island  of  Nassaw  over  the  said  River  without  Coming  to  or 
Landing  att  the  used  &  Accustomed  place  where  the  said  ferry 
is  Kept  and  Appointed  to  the  great  loss  and  Damage  of  your 
Petitioners,  whose  farmer  of  the  said  ferry  Complains  he 
Cannot  live  upon  nor  longer  hold  the  same  though  att  A 
Moderate  And  Very  Easy  Rent. 

The  lessee  sought  to  remedy  this  "  Mischiefe  and  Incon- 
venience "  by  being  granted  all  the  vacant  land  from  high 
water  to  low  water  mark  fronting  the  harbor  of  the  city 
"  from  the  East  side  of  Red  hooke  Upon  Nassaw  Island 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  221.  2  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  230. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  230.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  221-2. 


135]  THE  FERRIES 

Aforesaid  to  the  East  side  of  the  Wallabout  upon  the  said 
Island  for  the  better  and  more  Convenient  taking  in  & 
Landing  of  passengers  Corne  and  Other  goods  &  things 
bound  to  and  from  this  Citty." 

At  the  time,  this  petition  was  not  granted,  but  five  years 
later  the  governor  bestowed  such  a  grant  in  the  so-called 
Cornbury  charter  (April  19,  1708),  much  to  the  disgust 
of  the  inhabitants  of  Brooklyn,  who,  however,  if  they  dwelt 
by  the  water  side,  were  given  the  right  of  transporting  them- 
selves and  their  goods  over  the  river,  provided  they  carried 
no  strangers.1 

In  the  meantime  the  city  was  having  its  troubles  with 
Benson,  the  ferryman.  On  May  26,  1703,  the  council  re- 
solved to  commence  a  process  at  law  against  him  for  arrear- 
ages of  rent  and  "  breach  of  Covenants."  The  process  of 
law  was  slow  in  those  days,  as  well  as  now.  The  next  thing 
we  read,  six  months  later,  is  that  "  an  Action  is  now  depend- 
ing in  the  Supream  Court  of  this  Province."  This  action 
Benson  sought  to  annul  by  a  "  Memorial  "  to  the  common 
council.  "  He  humbly  begs  leave  to  Represent  that  the  pro- 
fits and  Advantages  Arising  by  the  Said  Ferry  are  greatly 
diminished  from  what  the  Same  were  formerly."  He  claims 
that  he  is  impoverished  by  his  high  rent  and  his  expense  in 
maintaining  the  ferry  and  that  it  will  mean  the  utter  ruin 
of  his  family  to  continue  the  work  under  the  "  Terms  and 
Covenants  Mentioned  in  his  Lease."  He  hopes  the  court 
will  appoint  a  committee  "  to  Enquire  into  the  great  hard- 
ships he  lyes  under,"  and  that  the  controversy  may  be 
amicably  adjusted  without  "  the  Severe  Rules  of  the  Law." 
Such  a  committee  having  been  appointed.  I'enson  made  two 
propositions :  First,  to  give  up  the  ferry  at  once  and  pay 
"  presently  "  the  whole  rent,  together  with  any  legal  charges 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [^6 

that  had  accrued  from  the  time  he  assumed  the  work. 
Second,  to  pay  his  arrearages  in  rent  and  for  the  remainder 
of  his  term  pay  £70  per  year  instead  of  £145.*  The  court 
took  a  month  to  "  maturely  consider  "  his  proposals  and  then 
resolved  to  "  abate  him  "  £30  per  year  (making  his  rental 
£115),  if  he  would  forthwith  pay  all  arrearages  and  legal 
charges.2  Without  any  exact  knowledge,  we  are  left  to  as- 
sume that  Benson  was  looking  for  more  generous  terms 
than  these,  for  there  is  a  record,  two  months  later  (April 
3,  1/04),  that  the  court  has  "again  duely  Considered  the 
proposals  of  Dirck  Benson."  Their  resolution,3  however, 
is  in  almost  the  exact  words  of  the  previous  one  and  con- 
cludes with  the  statement  that  the  action  now  pending  will 
be  prosecuted  to  the  utmost  if  he  refuses  to  comply. 

It  is  very  certain  that  Benson  did  not  comply  and  that 
prosecution  "  to  the  uttmost "  was  again  delayed,  and  we 
are  prepared  to  find  the  ferryman  appearing  before  the  court 
with  more  complaints  and  another  proposition.4  His  com- 
plaints were  that  his  revenue  had  greatly  diminished,  among 
other  reasons  because  of  the  pestilence  5  and  the  establish- 
ment of  a  rival  ferry  at  "  yellowhooke."  His  proposal  was 
to  surrender  his  present  lease  and  take  out  a  new  lease  for 
the  remainder  of  his  term  of  seven  years,  during  which  time 
he  would  pay  £700  to  the  city,  £100  in  a  week,  £100  more 
in  a  month  following,  and  the  remainder  in  such  reasonable 
time  as  the  court  should  think  right.  Perhaps  the  court 
felt  that  there  was  some  justice  in  Benson's  complaints  or 
perhaps  the  prospect  of  receiving  £200  in  five  weeks  was 
encouraging.  At  any  rate  they  accepted  his  proposition  and 
gave  him  an  additional  year  to  pay  the  remaining  £500.  He 
must  also  pay  all  the  legal  charges  that  had  accrued. 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  253.  *Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  254. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  259.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  267-8. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  ^03. 


137]  THE  FERRIES  137 

A  little  less  than  a  year  later  (August  2,  1/05),  a  com- 
mittee appointed  to  audit  the  account  of  the  farmer  of  the 
ferry  reported  £176  2  i  as  the  amount  due  the  corporation, 
the  1 2th  of  April  last  past,  "  in  full  Ballance  of  the  Rent  of 
the  ferry  house  &  ferry  during  his  Lease."  1  So  Benson 
was  fulfilling  his  agreement  surprisingly  well,  and  the  com- 
mon council  was  willing,  despite  the  covenants  of  the  lease, 
to  discount  £30  from  his  rent  for  repairs  during  that  year.2 
Just  before  the  end  of  his  term,  however,  in  1708,  a  vigilant 
committee  reported  in  detail  on  repairs  that  \vere  again 
needed  at  the  ferry  house,  and  Benson  was  called  upon 
to  complete  those  repairs  before  he  was  released  from  his 
bond.3  Then,  as  now,  all  waterside  property  entailed  exten- 
sive repair  charges. 

Some  six  months  before  the  end  of  Benson's  term  the  com- 
mon council  had  made  arrangements  for  leasing  the  ferry 
again.  Five  years  was  to  be  the  term  instead  of  seven. 
The  Manhattan  landing  places  were  explicitly  defined  thus : 

Every  Munday  and  Thursday  at  Countess  Key. 

Every  Tuesday  and  fryday  at  Burgers  Path. 

Every  Wensday  and  Saturday  at  the  Dock  Slip  near  Coll 
Cortlandts  house  and  at  no  Other  places  whatsoever.4 

This  was  later  amended  so  as  to  allow  for  landing  after 
sunset,  "  att  the  most  Convenient  place."  5  James  Harding, 
victualler,  became  the  new  lessee,  at  £180  per  year.  A 
victualler  might  well  bid  for  the  ferry,  because  the  revenue 
from  the  bar  at  the  ferry  house  in  Brooklyn  had  always 
been  in  the  mind's  eye  of  the  bidder.'1 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  284.  "  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  280,  287. 

3  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  347,  349;  sec  also  vol.  ii,  p.  369,  to  show  that  he 
had  not  yet  complied. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  330-3.  i  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  338. 

6  Stiles,  II.  R.,  Hist,  of  Brooklyn,  vol.  iii,  p.  509;   sec  also  Rccs.  of 
N.  Am.,  vol.  iii,  p.  5. 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

Reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  competition  the 
different  ferrymen  felt  from  private  boatmen  on  the  Brook- 
lyn shore.  On  January  23,  1708,  about  three  months  be- 
fore the  Cornbury  charter  was  granted,  Cornelius  Sebring, 
a  King's  County  member  of  the  provincial  assembly  who 
owned  a  farm  "  directly  over  against  the  center  "  of  the 
city  of  New  York,  petitioned  Lord  Cornbury,  the  governor, 
for  a  ferry  privilege.  This  privilege  was  to  be  limited  "  on 
the  Island  of  Nassauw  on  the  One  Side  by  the  old  ferry 
and  on  the  other  side  by  the  Red  hook  and  on  the  side  of 
New  York  between  the  Slip  at  Captain  Theobalds  unto  the 
great  Bridge."  The  petitioner  claimed  that  this  privilege 
could  not  harm  the  old  ferry,  "  it  being  not  so  convenient  for 
that  ferry  to  send  their  boats  to  the  South  end  and  Center 
of  the  City  where  he  proposes  to  send  his."  Furthermore, 
he  did  not  expect  the  old  ferry  boat  to  be  excluded  from  his 
limits,  and  he  was  willing  to  accept  such  regulations  and 
transportation  rates  "  as  to  your  Excellency  shall  seem 
meet."  l 

The  governor  gave  Mayor  Ebenezer  Willson  a  copy  of 
the  petition  to  read  to  the  aldermen  and  assistants  at  their 
meeting,  on  February  2.  The  councilmen  made  haste 
to  draft  a  counter  petition  which,  at  a  special  meeting  on 
February  4,  was  "  three  times  read  and  Approved  and 
signed  by  this  Court  Nemine  Contra  dicente." 

As  a  specimen  of  the  defense  of  municipal  privileges  in 
colonial  America,  this  petition  is  undoubtedly  the  earliest 
of  any  importance : 

To  His  Excellency  Edward  Viscount  Cornbury,  Capt.  Gen- 
eral and  Governour  in  Chiefe  of  her  Majestys  Province  of 
New  York  &c:  and  Territories  depending  thereon  in  America 
and  Vice  Admiral  of  the  same  &c: 

1  Documentary  History  of  New  York,  vol.  iii,  pp.  255-6. 

2  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  343- 


^9]  THE  FERRIES 

The  Humble  Petition  of  the  Mayor  Aldermen  and  Com- 
monality of  her  Majesty's  City  and  Corporation  of  New  York 

Most  Humbly  Sheweth 

That  The  Inhabitants  of  the  Said  City  and  Corporation  for 
Seaventy  years  past  have  peaceably  and  Quietly  Possess'd  and 
Enjoy'd  several  Rights  Liberties  Priviledges  Franchises  Free. 
Customs  Preheminencies  Advantages  Jurisdictions  Emolu- 
ments and  Immunities  Granted  &  Confirmed  unto  them  by  her 
Majestys  Royal  Ancestors  and  the  divers  Governours  Author- 
ized and  Commissioned  by  them  as  well  as  by  the  several 
Governours  Directors  and  Commanders  in  Chiefe  of  the 
Nether  Dutch  Nation  whilst  the  same  was  under  their  power 
and  Subjection  to  the  great  increase  of  her  Majestys  Revenue 
and  the  sencible  Growth  and  Advancement  of  her  Majestysi 
Said  City  &  Province  and  among  the  Rest  that  of  the  ferry 
between  the  said  City  and  Nassaw  Island  (formerly  called 
long  Island)  and  that  the  loading  and  landing  place  of  the 
Said  Ferry  from  this  City  on  Nassaw  Island  hath  been  Com- 
monly Esteemed  and  Reputed  for  seaventy  years  past  to  ex- 
tend from  A  heap  of  Rock  Stones  Gathered  together  on  A 
small  wharfe  or  Landing  bridge  Near  the  ferry  house  on  the 
.Said  Island  unto  the  West  End  of  the  Hill  to  the  Westward 
of  the  same  and  that  from  high  water  to  low  water  Mark  for 
the  Accomodation  of  all  passengers  and  Travellers  to  and 
from  this  City  as  well  as  for  the  loading  and  unloading  of 
wheat  and  Other  Provisions  which  are  Accustomed  to  be  there 
loaded  in  the  ferry  boats  for  the  subsistance  of  the  Inhabitants 
of  this  City  at  all  times  of  Tide  and  which  Said  Ferry  (at  the 
great  charge  &  Expence  of  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Said  City 
and  Corporation  by  their  Erecting  several  Publick  Buildings 
for  the  service  thereof)  is  rendered  Very  Commodious  to  all 
Persons  Passing  the  same  at  very  Easy  and  moderate  Rates 
and  is  duely  and  Regularly  Kept  and  attended  with  able  men 
Boats  and  scows  and  without  the  least  Complaint  of  Omission 
or  Neglect  by  Any  persons  whatsoever,  the  Profitts  whereof 
have  nllways  been  Appropriated  by  this  Corporation  for  the 


I4o        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [I4O 

Pttblick  Service  of  the  Government  of  the  Said  City  and  is  the 
only  Considerable  Income  left  to  Support  the  publick  Build- 
ings Bridges  Gaols  Landing  places  fire  and  Candle  for  their 
watches  the  Sallarys  of  their  Officers  Bellmen  &c:  and  to 
defray  the  Other  publick  and  Nessessary  Charge  of  the  Said 
City  And  was  Granted  unto  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Said  City 
under  the  seal  of  this  Province  in  the  year  1686  and  Confirmed 
unto  them  by  an  Act  of  General  Assembly  Entituled  an  Act 
for  the  settling  Quieting  and  Confirming  unto  the  Citys  Towns 
Manners  and  Freeholders  within  this  Province  their  several 
Grants  Patents  and  Rights  Respectively. 

That  your  Excellencys  Petitioners  by  your  Lordships  benign 
favour  and  goodness  understanding  that  one  Cornelius  Sebring 
for  his  own  Private  Lucre  and  Gain  is  solicting  your  Lordship 
for  her  Majestys  Grant  of  Another  Ferry  from  Nassaw  Island 
to  this  City  and  of  Most  of  the  Landing  places  now  belonging 
to  this  City  designing  thereby  to  make  Considerable  Improve- 
ments to  Ruine  and  destroy  the  present  ferry  the  Chief  Income 
And  support  of  this  Corporation  for  the  Prevention  whereof 

Your  Excellencys  Petitioners  most  humbly  Supplicate  that 
your  Lordship  will  be  favourably  pleased  to  take  the  premisses 
into  Your  Prudent  Consideration  and  for  the  Reasons  Afore- 
said (tho  many  more  may  be  Offered  to  long  here  to  Incert) 
to  Reject  the  unreasonable  and  unjust  Petition  of  the  said 
Cornelius  Sebring  wee  having  an  entire  Confidence  of  Your 
Excellencys  Justice  and  goodness  that  as  you  have  hitherto 
Protected  us  in  our  Just  Rights  and  Priviledges  (for  which 
wee  Return  your  Lordship  our  most  dutiful  and  Gratefull  Ac- 
knowledgments) So  your  Lordship  will  Continue  to  Counten- 
ance and  Protect  us  in  the  same  and  that  you  will  Ever  prefer 
the  publick  welfare  of  So  Loyall  and  Considerable  A  People 
as  this  Corporation  are  before  the  Interest  and  unjust  Pre- 
tences of  A  Private  Person. 

And  your  Excellencys  Petitioners  as  in  duty  bound  Shall 
Ever  pray  &c  t1 

1  .!/.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  343-4- 


I4l]  THE  FERRIES 

The  mayor  was  instructed  to  employ  counsel  to  appear 
before  the  governor  in  council,  "  to  defend  the  Rights  and 
Priviledges  of  this  Corporation  against  the  unjust  pretences 
of  Cornelius  Sebring."  On  March  3,  the  chief  magistrate 
of  the  city  had  the  pleasure  of  informing  the  court  that 
Sebring's  petition  had  been  rejected.1  The  magistrates  at 
once  resolved  unanimously  to  reiterate  their  request  of  five 
years  earlier  for  all  the  land  on  the  Long  Island  side  from 
high  to  low  water  mark  from  "  the  Wallabought  to  the  Red- 
hooke."  They  also  desired  power  "to  Establish  one  or  more 
ferrys  if  there  Shall  be  Occasion  and  A  Confirmation  of  the 
same  under  A  Moderate  quitt  Rent  and  at  Reasonable  Rates 
&c."  2  They  elaborated  this  request  in  a  formal  petition 
and  appropriated  £300  to  further  the  petition.  Some  one 
was  keen  enough  to  remember  that  this  was  the  amount 
handed  over  to  Governor  Dongan  some  twenty  years  earlier, 
and  now  they  were  ready  to  buy  another  charter.  The 
alacrity  with  which  the  new  charter  was  granted  is  amus- 
ing, but  even  more  so  is  the  action  of  the  court  in  mortgaging 
the  ferry  revenue  to  raise  the  £300  which  they  had  appro- 
priated in  advance.3 

Early  in  the  following  year  (February  23,  1709),  the 
lengthening  of  the  landing  bridge  on  the  Brooklyn  side  and 
repair  of  the  ferry  barn  were  the  objects  of  investigation 
by  a  special  committee  of  the  common  council.4  Presum- 
ably the  sum  of  £20  5  9,  ordered  paid  to  James  Harding,  the 
lessee,  about  six  months  later.5  was  for  work  authorized  by 
that  committee.  Whether  it  had  become  a  habit  with  ferry- 
men to  petition  periodically  for  an  abatement  of  their  rent 
or  whether  there  was  a  sufficient  reason  at  this  particular 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  345.  '  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  346. 

s  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  351.  •'  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  371. 

0  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  381. 


I42        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [142- 

time,  we  can  only  surmise.  Mr.  Harding,  however,  pre- 
sented a  petition  for  such  abatement  at  two  successive  meet- 
ings of  the  common  council,1  "  by  reason  of  the  Great  sick- 
ness of  the  small  pox."  It  was  rejected  each  time.  We 
find  no  other  reference  to  a  small  pox  scourge  at  this  time. 

The  committee  appointed  on  January  19,  i/n,2  to  in- 
vestigate needed  repairs  not  contained  in  Harding's  lease, 
reported  about  a  month  later  3  the  need  of  repairs  to  the 
mantel  piece  in  one  room  and  of  repairs  to  the  landing 
bridge,  which  they  considered  too  short.  They  were  or- 
dered to  have  these  repairs  made.  An  additional  order  to 
the  same  effect  as  regards  repairs  to  the  house,  but  leaving 
Aldermen  De  Peyster  and  Jansen  off  the  committee,  was 
issued  at  the  meeting  of  November  2,  1711.* 

On  the  day  before  Christmas,  1712,  the  ferry  was  leased 
for  a  term  of  five  years  "  on  the  like  Conditions  it  was  last 
farmed,"  to  Dirck  Adolph  who  bid  £21 1.5  Incidentally  we 
may  note  that  the  process  of  farming  the  ferry  was  expen- 
sive. Richard  Harris,  at  whose  house  the  "  publick  Out- 
cry "  took  place,  received  £7  109,  "  being  for  Expences  at 
his  house  on  the  letting  the  ferry."  The  town  clerk  also 
received  regularly  a  comfortable  sum  for  printing  the  ad- 
vertisement and  drawing  the  lease.7 

The  same  old  story  of  necessary  repairs  greets  us  with 
the  advent  of  Adolph  as  ferryman.  He  was  recompensed 
for  the  not  inconsiderable  outlay  of  £101  i  8  only  nine 
months  after  he  had  assumed  office.8  To  prevent  the  usual 
damage  caused  in  the  winter  season  by  ice,  Adolph  was  or- 
dered (October  24,  1713)  to  secure  the  "  Bridge  at  the  ferry 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  397,  398.  "  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  429. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  435.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  456. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  24-5.  *Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  25. 

7  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  34.  8  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  46. 


1 43]  THE  FERRIES 

with  five  scow  load  of  Stones."  1  This  undoubtedly  refers 
to  the  landing  wharf  on  the  Brooklyn  side.  The  sum  of 
£7  10  was  the  expense  incurred2 — an  outlay  that  justified 
itself  thoroughly  if  we  may  judge  by  the  non-appearance 
of  expense  for  repairs  in  the  years  following.  Work  of  the 
same  sort,  to  the  amount  of  £5,  was  done  in  i/iQ.3 

There  centers  about  Ferryman  Adolph  another  story  of 
arrears  in  rent/  a  claim  for  abatement  of  rent,5  committees 
to  inform  the  lessee  of  "  severall  Neglects  and  Abuses,"  e  to 
"  Discourse  "  with  him  and  persuade  him  to  pay  arrears 
and  the  like.7  Abatement  was  allowed  to  the  extent  of  £31 
per  annum,  making  his  yearly  payment  just  what  Harding 
had  paid  (£180)  provided  he  settled  his  arrearages  with- 
out delay  and  was  punctual  in  his  future  payments.8  Un- 
doubtedly he  got  the  abatement  without  living  up  to  the 
conditions  specified.  It  takes  some  guessing  to  conclude 
why  the  common  council  (September  30,  1717)  desired 
to  procure  the  passage  of  a  bill  in  the  colonial  assembly, 
"  for  Regulating  the  Ferry  between  the  City  of  New  York 
and  the  Island  Nassaw."  9  It  may  be  that  they  wanted 
anyone  who  infringed  on  the  ferry  privilege  to  feel  that  he 
was  violating  colonial,  as  well  as  municipal,  authority. 

The  common  council  at  its  meeting,  on  December  24, 
1717,  hit  upon  the  idea  of  leasing  the  ferry  to  Brooklyn  in 
two  parts,  and  conditions  were  drawn  up  accordingly.  The 
ferryman  on  the  New  York  side  was  privileged  to  carry  no 
cattle,  only  passengers  and  goods,  and  needed  therefore  to 
provide  only  two  small  boats.  The  ferryman  on  the  Brook- 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iii,  p.  50.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  57. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  194.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  63. 

&Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  80.  6Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  130. 

'Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  141.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  80. 
9  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  150. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

lyn  side  had  to  furnish  both  large  and  small  boats  and  was 
not  restricted  as  to  his  cargo.  He  alone  had  charge  of  the 
tavern  and  all  the  ferry  appurtenances  and  derived  the  benefit 
therefrom.  Both  had  to  agree  to  impose  no  other  rates  than 
those  established  by  the  act  of  the  General  Assembly.1  It 
was  probably  believed  that  a  greater  revenue  would  result 
in  this  way  and  that  better  service  would  be  maintained. 
Inasmuch  as  it  would  be  natural  for  a  New  York  resident  to 
bid  for  the  New  York  end  and  a  Brooklyn  resident  for  the 
Brooklyn  end,  friction  seemed  to  be  inevitable.  Happily 
Adolph's  predecessor,  James  Harding,  with  the  influential 
support  of  Governor  Hunter,  sought  both  jobs  and  got  them, 
bidding  £155  for  the  Brooklyn  privilege  and  £85  for  that 
of  Manhattan.2  Thus  friction  was  avoided  for  the  five- 
year  term  of  his  lease.  Then  the  New  York  ferry  was 
struck  off  to  him  again  for  £70,  but  John  Deane  evidently 
outbid  him  for  the  Brooklyn  ferry.3  As  Harding  lived  in 
Brooklyn,  he  appeared  before  the  board  presently  and  said 
he  intended  to  continue  his  residence  there  and  to  erect  a 
separate  "  Landing  Bridge  and  Penn."  The  corporation 
conceived  this  "to  be  directly  Contrary  to  the  true  Intent  & 
Meaning  of  the  Conditions  on  which  the  same  was  De- 
mised," whereupon  Harding  desired  to  be  released  from  his 
agreement.  The  common  council  made  it  a  part  of  the 
agreement  that  his  successor,  William  Wibling,  must  live  in 
Manhattan.4  The  two  new  ferrymen  assumed  their  duties, 
March  25,  1723,  and  there  was  trouble  at  once.  On  July 
23,  in  consequence  of  a  petition  from  Wibling,  the  common 
council  appointed  a  committee  of  seven  to  summon  Deane 
and  Wibling  before  them  and  hear  their  respective  com- 
plaints and  "  use  their  Endeavours  to  heal  their  Differences 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  156-162.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  163. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  307-8.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  iii.  pp.  309-10. 


THE  FERRIES  145 

&  to  Reconcile  the  said  Ferrymen."  1  This  committee  was 
to  report  "  with  all  Convenient  Expedition,"  if  their  efforts 
proved  futile.  As  no  such  report  appears,  the  differences  be- 
tween the  two  men  were  probably  patched  up  temporarily.2 
It  was  reported,  however,  about  six  months  later  ('February 
1 8,  1724),  that  Wibling  "hath  wholy  declined  giving  any 
further  Attendance  or  Employing  any  Boats  on  the  Said 
Ferry  for  the  future,"  offering  to  surrender  his  lease.3 

In  connection  with  the  arrangements  for  securing  a  suc- 
cessor to  Wibling  we  have  the  first  suggestion  of  a  different 
terminal  on  the  Brooklyn  side.  A  house  is  said  to  have  been 
"  lately  Recovered  from  John  seabring,"  4  a  son,  presumably, 
of  Cornelius,  before  mentioned  as  an  unsuccessful  peti- 
tioner for  a  ferry  privilege.  He  had  maintained  with  his 
family  a  private  ferry  and  house,  which  the  city  had  now 
taken  over  (perhaps  at  the  "  yellow  hooke  "  previously  re- 
ferred to).  It  is  not  to  be  understood,  however,  that  there 
was  a  second  municipal  ferry  line  to  Brooklyn  as  yet,  be- 
cause in  1728,  when  the  time  came  for  a  new  lease,  the 
common  council  reverted  to  its  former  custom  of  one  lease 
and  one  ferryman.5  Theophiltis  Elsworth  became  the  lessee 
for  the  next  five  years,  at  £258  per  annum.8 

It  is  worth  noting  that  the  members  of  the  common 
council  were  "  entertained  "  by  Elsworth  on  his  taking  pos- 
session of  the  ferry,  but  six  months  later,  when  the  latter 
put  in  a  bill  for  various  expenses,  there  was  included 
an  item  for  the  "  Entertaining  of  this  Corporation  at  his 
House  on  the  delivery  of  Possession  of  the  Ferry,''  '  and  the 

1  .!/.  C.  C.,  vol.  iii,  p.  320. 

-  See  De  Voe's  Market  Book,  p.  82,  for  trouble  between  Harding  & 
Wibling  in  1/25. 

SM.  C.  C.,  vol.  iii,  p.  337.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  340. 

blbid..  vol.  iii,  p.  428.  6  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  430. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  460. 


146       NEW  YORK  L\  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

account  was  "  allowed.''  What  an  opportunity  this  would 
have  been  for  the  infant  Gazette  reporter,  if  the  newspaper 
had  taken  on  its  present-day  activities ! 

Thus  far  we  have  been  concerned  only  with  the  ferry 
across  East  River.  Prior  to  1730,  and  indeed  for  many 
years  thereafter,  there  was  no  regular  ferry  service  across 
the  North  River,  but  some  method  of  crossing  the  Harlem 
River  in  the  direction  of  Albany  or  New  England  was  an 
early  necessity.  At  the  time  when  Director  Stuyvesant 
had  encouraged  the  settlement  of  New  Harlem,  in  1658,  he 
had  promised,  "  at  a  more  convenient  time,"  to  "  authorize 
a  Ferry  and  a  suitable  Scow  near  the  aforesaid  Village,  in 
order  to  convey  over  Cattle  and  Horses." *  Stuyvesant's  rule 
had  ended,  however,  and  the  new  settlement  had  been  de- 
clared by  Governor  Nicolls  to  be  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  municipality  of  New  York,  when  the  "  convenient  "  time 
for  establishing  the  ferry  came.  It  was  in  1667  and  the 
city's  chief  magistrate  was  Thomas  De  La  vail,  who  had  a 
personal  interest  in  the  undertaking  because  he  owned  some 
lands  in  Harlem. 

The  court  of  mayor  and  aldermen  granted  the  ferry  right 
to  Johannes  Verveelen  for  live  years  under  specified  regu- 
lations, which  are  particularly  interesting  because  they  actu- 
ally antedated  those  prescribed  for  the  ferry  to  Long  Island. 
Verveelen  was  required  to  maintain  ferry  houses  at  Harlem 
and  on  "  Bronckside."  The  former  must  be  a  "  Convenient 
house  and  Lodging,"  apparently  something  that  would  cor- 
respond to  the  ''ordinary"  before  mentioned  on  the  Brooklyn 
side  of  the  Long  Island  ferry.  Around  the  latter — the 
"Bronckside"  house — he  must  clear  the  land  and  at  the  same 
time  not  "'  spoyle  the  meadow,"  and  at  the  end  of  his  term 
the  city  would  pay  him  for  this  house  at  its  valuation  unless 

'Riker,  History  of  Harlem,  pp.  188-9. 


147]  THE  FERRIES  147 

he  leased  the  ferry  again.  Considering  the  expense  he  was 
under  in  building,  he  was  assured  exemption  by  the  governor 
"  from  paying  Excise  for  what  wine  or  beare  hee  shall 
Retayle  "  for  the  first  year.  "  Every  man  for  his  Meale," 
eight  pence;  x  for  his  lodging,  two  pence;  and  for  the 
"  Nights  hay  "  for  his  horse,  four  pence,  were  the  "  Ordin- 
ary "  rates  established.  For  passage,  two  pence  per  person 
was  charged,  ten  pence  for  a  horse,  eight  pence  for  an 
ox  or  cow  except  "  Cattle  under  a  yeare  ould,"  six  pence. 
An  interesting  "  dead  head  "  exemption  was  a  messenger 
"  with  a  packett  from  the  Governor  of  New  Yorke  ...  or 
of  Connectecott,"  perhaps  the  earliest  provision  in  the  rec- 
ords of  the  state  for  the  free  transportation  of  those  on 
public  business.3 

Among  other  places  where  the  Harlem  River  had  been 
forded  previous  to  the  ferry  grant,  was  Spuyten  Duyvil,  but 
it  appears  to  have  been  determined  that  this  route  should 
be  blocked  by  means  of  fences,  thus  turning  all  travelers 
to  the  ferry.  As  might  be  expected,  this  did  not  prove  ef- 
fectual. Habit  and  frugality  both  had  to  be  reckoned  with. 
In  June  of  the  year  1668,  Verveelen  was  clever  enough 
to  induce  "  the  remaining  inhabitants  of  New  Haerlem  "  to 
unite  with  him  in  a  complaint  to  the  court,  "  that  the  road 
by  Spitenduyvel  is  used  by  travelers,  whereby  the  fences 
there  are  thrown  down  and  broken  to  the  great  injury  of  the 
Commonalty  in  general,  whilst  their  cattle  very  often  leap 
over  them,  but  more  especially  to  the  prejudice  of  the  Ferry- 
man;  redress  of  which  they  request."  One  John  Harcker 
in  particular,  who  had  passed  that  way  with  a  great  number 
of  cattle  and  horses,  was  ordered  by  the  court  to  "  pay  the 
ferry  money  of  all  horses  and  cattle  conveyed  by  him  over 
the  Spytenduyvel,  whilst  the  Ferry  has  been  at  Haerlem." 

1  For  all  the  rates  alternate  prices  in  wampum  were  given. 
^Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  83-4. 


I48       NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [I4g 

This  money  was  to  be  used  to  put  the  fences  again  in  re- 
pair.1 In  the  same  record  is  to  be  noted  an  expression  of 
dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of  the  court  that  Verveelen,  after 
a  year  as  ferryman,  had  not  yet  finished  his  house  and  cattle 
pen — referring  probably  to  the  Bronx  side  of  the  river. 

Before  another  year  had  passed  Verveelen  had  made  up 
his  mind  that  Spuyten  Duyvil  was  too  good  a  wading  place 
for  him  to  attempt  to  maintain  a  competition  against  it. 
Governor  Lovelace  had  now  arrived  in  the  colony.  Know- 
ing well  that  the  court  of  mayor  and  aldermen  had  not  been 
particularly  pleased  with  him.  the  ferryman  shrewdly  took 
up  the  matter  of  a  change  in  the  ferry  location  with  the  new 
governor.  Under  date  of  February  27,  1669,  the  latter 
referred  the  matter  to  the  mayor  and  aldermen  for  "  their 
Judgment  &  Resolution  therein."  At  their  next  meeting 
the  court  agreed  to  the  removal  and  granted  him  the  ferry 
right  at  the  new  location  for  the  remaining  three  years, 
provided  "  he  remoeves  his  habitation  thether,  or  Setleth  a 
sufficiant  person  in  his  roome  to  attend  the  said  ferry,"  and 
provided  also  he  submit  an  annual  account  of  the  income 
from  the  ferry.3 

Thereupon  the  governor,  apparently  without  any  protest 
on  the  part  of  the  court,  proceeded  to  draw  up  "  Articles  of 
Agreement  "  between  himself  and  the  ferryman.4  These 
are  much  more  elaborate  than  the  regulations  of  1667,  estab- 
lished by  the  common  council.  Experience  has  suggested 
some  changes  in  rates,  quite  a  reduction  being  made  for 
horses  and  cattle.  The  charge  now  for  a  man  and  horse 
was  seven  pence;  for  a  single  horse,  six  pence;  for  two 
horses,  ten  pence;  for  several,  four  pence  a  piece.  Where- 

1  Rec.  N .  Am.,  vol.  vi,  p.  130. 

'l  Executive  Council  Minutes,  vol.  i,  p.  222. 

3  Rec.  .V.  Am.,  vol.  vi,  p.  i/o. 

4  Executive  Council  Minutes,  vol.  i.  pp.  223-9. 


149]  THE  FERRIES  149 

as  cattle  were  ferried  more  cheaply  before,  now  the  rate  is 
the  same  as  for  horses.  An  option  was  given  the  owner  of 
a  drove  of  cattle  or  horses  to  drive  them  across  without  the 
use  of  the  boat  for  two  pence  per  head.  It  was  further 
stipulated  that,  in  case  a  fair  were  being  held  on  the  island, 
droves  were  to  be  allowed  to  pass  free  on  the  day  before 
and  the  day  after  the  fair.  A  lodger  could  now  insist  upon 
sheets  for  his  bed  and  get  them  by  paying  six  pence  extra. 
As  before,  the  governor's  messenger  went  free,  as  did  also 
"  any  magistrate  upon  ye  publique  affaires,"  or  those 
"  sumoned  to  appeare  in  Armes  upon  any  Emergent  oc- 
casion." 

The  most  interesting  article  in  the  agreement,  however, 
was  that  providing  that  the  new  town  or  village  of  Fordham 
was  "  to  have  it's  dependance  upon  ye  Mayors  Court  of 
this  Citty  in  like  manner  as  ye  Towne  of  New  Harlem  hath, 
They  having  liberty  to  Trye  all  small  Causes  under  £5 
amongst  themselves  as  is  allowed  in  other  Towne  Courts." 
Herein  we  see  a  forerunner  of  our  Greater  New  York  of 
today.  Verveelen  was  made  constable  of  Fordham  and 
obliged  to  bear  one-third  the  expense  of  a  causeway  over 
the  meadow  ground  between  the  ferry  and  Fordham;  the 
remaining  two-thirds  was  to  be  met  by  the  inhabitants  of  the 
new  town.  The  lease  was  extended  to  eleven  years,  Ver- 
veelen being  required  to  pay  a  quit  rent  of  ten  shillings  per 
year;  at  the  end  of  his  lease  he  must  "have  ye  house  Tenant- 
able  with  a  sufficient  boate  and  ye  ffences  and  Gates  kept 
in  repaire  as  they  ought  to  be  Continued  all  ye  tyme." 

In  1680  there  was  some  agitation  for  the  building  of  a 
bridge  across  the  Spuyten  Duyvil  Creek;  no  action  was 
taken,  however,  and  on  December  30,  Verveelen  was 
granted  the  ferry  by  Governor  Andros  for  seven  years 
more.1  After  the  expiration  of  that  lease  he  was  told  by 

1  Riker,  History  of  Harlem,  p.  416. 


I50 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 


Governor  Dongan  "  to  hold  the  premises  until  further  order 
to  the  contrary."  1  The  construction  of  a  toll  bridge  actu- 
ally took  place  in  1693-4,  and  in  connection  therewith  the 
mayor  and  aldermen  once  more  appear.  Governor  Dongan 
proposed  its  construction  to  them  (January  5,  1693),  "  for 
the  better  accommodation  &  advantage,  which  may  Accrue 
thereby  to  ye  Said  Citty."  After  consideration  the  com- 
mon council  "  doe  find  that  itt  cannott  be  well  Accomplished 
without  A  great  Charge,  unto  this  Citty,  which  att  present 
they  are  not  Soe  Capable  to  Defray."  Therefore  they  pro- 
posed that  Frederick  Philipse  be  allowed  to  construct,  "A 
good  and  Convenient  draw  bridg,"  at  his  own  expense  and 
receive  certain  fixed  tolls:  a  penny  per  head  for  cattle,  two 
pence  for  man  and  horse,  twelve  pence  for  each  "  Score 
of  Hogs  &  Sheep,3  &  Six  pence  for  each  Cart  &  Waggon." 
The  first  bridge  connecting  Manhattan  with  adjoining  shores 
was  that  at  Spuyten  Duyvil,  constructed  and  maintained  at 
private  expense.  We  could  hardly  expect  the  same  interest 
on  the  part  of  the  magistrates  in  a  bridge  or  ferry  eighteen 
miles  away  at  the  northern  end  of  the  island  that  they  felt 
in  the  Brooklyn  ferry,  so  near  to  their  weekly  place  of  meet- 
ing and  so  remunerative. 

1  Riker,  op.  cit.,  p.  551.  *M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  290. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  306-7. 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  WATCH 

IN  these  days,  the  Municipal  Year  Book  *  reveals  a  uni- 
formed police  force  of  10,588  in  New  York.  About  six 
hundred  of  these  do  their  best  to  see  that  traffic  on  our 
crowded  streets  is  properly  regulated,  about  one-half  keep 
watch  at  night  to  see  that  we  do  not  suffer  at  the  hands  of 
the  vicious. 

It  was  not  always  thus.  Going  back  two  hundred  and 
forty  years,  to  the  beginnings  of  the  English  city  of  New 
York,2  we  find  the  name  "'  police  "  unknown.  Three  3  con- 
stables were  then  the  city's  protection,  at  least  in  the  day 
time.  Some  of  the  things  their  superior  officers,  the  mayor 
and  aldermen,  enacted  for  them  to  do,  are  worth  noticing. 

The  Constable  of  Each  ward  And  Division  within  this  Citty 
And  Libertycs  thereof  doc  from  tyme  to  tymc,  make  A  Strict 
Search,  And  Enquirey  within  there  Severall  wards  and  Divi- 
sions After  All  Strangers  that  Shall  Come  Reside  or  Inhabitt, 
within  their  Sayd  wards  or  Divisions  And  give  A  List  And 
Account  of  their  names  to  the  mayor  or  in  his  Absence ;  to 
the  Eldest  Alderman,  that  further  Examination  may  be  made 
And  Ordor  taken  therein  to  Save  the  Citty  from  Charge.4 

1  Municipal  Year  Book  of  the  City  of  AVw  York,  issue  of  1916. 

2  Its  name  had  been  New  Amsterdam  till  1664:  ten  years  later,  under 
Dutch  re-occupation  its  name  was  New  Orange  for  o  months. 

3  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  64. 

4   City  Ordinance,  .I/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i.  n.  U5. 


152 

By  another  ordinance  one  of  the  constables  in  each  of 
the  five  wards  south  of  the  Fresh  Water  was,  on  the  Lord's 
Day  in  time  of  divine  service,  to  walk  through  the  streets 
and  lanes  of  the  city  with  his  staff,  and  see  that  the  magis- 
trates' orders  were  observed.  He  was  also  to  enter  the 
public  houses  and  see  if  any  person  be  found  there,  or  any 
drink  sold  contrary  to  the  magistrates'  orders,  and  to  make 
complaint  to  the  council  of  any  violation.1 

A  large  part  of  these  English  ordinances,  however,  are 
traceable  to  the  Dutch  city.  For  instance,  special  pro- 
tection on  the  Lord's  Day,  during  divine  service,  was  sought 
for  in  a  petition  of  the  burgomasters  and  schepens  to  Direc- 
tor General  Stuyvesant  and  his  council  shortly  after  the 
Indian  massacre  of  September  15,  1655.  As  a  result,  the 
burgomasters  were  authorized  to  cause  a  "  corporal's  guard," 
on  half  the  Sunday,  to  patrol  and  keep  watch  during  divine 
service.  They  were  also  recommended  to  set  off  and  enclose 
the  city  with  palisades,  the  better  to  "  exclude  the  wild 
barbarians." 

If  we  start  to  note  how  the  city  was  protected  at  its  very 
beginning  in  1653,  the  official  known  as  the  sellout  demands 
our  attention.  "  Fiscal  "  and  "  Schout  Fiscal  "  are  other 
names  by  which  this  official  is  designated.  He  was  the 
connecting  link  officially  between  the  province  of  New 
Netherland  and  the  city  of  New  Amsterdam.  At  first  he 
was  an  appointee  of  the  West  India  Company,  like  the  di- 
rector general,  and  was  instructed  to  make  complaints 
against,  arraign  and  punish  all  delinquents  and  transgressors 
of  the  company's  instructions  and  commands.3  The  duty 
of  detecting  smugglers,  for  instance,  rested  directly  on  his 
shoulders.4 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  134.  * Rec.  -V.  Am.,  vol.  ii,  p.  52. 

*N.  Y.  Col.  Docs.,  vol.  i,  p.  494.  *Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  512. 


153]  THE  WATCH  J53 

On  one  occasion  the  schout  called  the  attention  of  the 
court  to  the  fact  that  a  couple  from  New  Amsterdam  had 
been  married  in  Gravesend,  stating  that  this  was  not  "  in 
accordance  with  correct  practice  of  the  ecclesiastical  and 
civil  order  in  this  City."  If  this  were  overlooked,  it  would 
"  prepare  a  way,  whereby  hereafter  some  sons  and  daugh- 
ters, unwilling  to  obey  their  parents  and  guardians,  will, 
contrary  to  their  wishes,  secretly  go  and  get  married  in  such 
villages  or  elsewhere."  The  court  considered  this  some- 
thing to  be  referred  to  the  director  and  his  council.1 

An  activity  of  a  different  type  appears  when  the  schout  re- 
presented to  the  court,  on  October  19,  1654,  that  he  had 
found  on  several  nights  drinking  clubs,  with  "  dancing  and 
jumping  and  entertainment  of  disorderly  people,"  at  the 
house  of  Jan  Peck,  a  licensed  tapster.  Peck  also  sold  liquor 
"  during  Preaching  "  and  "  there  was  a  great  noise  made  by 
drunkards  especially  yesterday,  Sunday,  in  this  house  so  that 
he  was  obliged  to  remove  one  to  jail  in  a  cart."  The  court 
annulled  Peck's  license.  On  another  occasion  the  schout 
arrested  and  confined  Aryaen  Jansen  van  Spreckerhoorn,  a 
sailor  from  the  ship  Black  Eagle,  who  while  on  shore  in 
the  city,  assaulted  his  skipper  with  a  knife  and  wounded  him. 
The  leniency  of  the  magistrates'  court  of  those  days  is  thus 
revealed  :  "  in  consideration  of  the  delinquents  youth,  the  in- 
tercession of  the  Skipper  etc.,"  van  Spreckerhoorn  was  con- 
demned "to  appear  in  Court,  and  there  with  uncovered  head, 
ask  forgiveness  of  Cod,  Justice  and  his  Skipper;  to  defray 
the  costs  of  arrest,  and  pay  in  addition  a  fine  of  sixty 
Carolus  Guilders." 

There  had  been  friction  between  Stuyvesant  and  his  schout 
fiscal 4  a  short  time  before  the  city  came  into  existence,  and 

1  Rec.  -V.  -•/>;:.,  vol.  i,  p.  155.         -  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  255. 

3 1  bid.,  vol.  i,  p.  309.  4  A".  V.  Col.  Docs.,  vol.  i,  p.  495  ct  seq. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

the  imperious  director  had  assumed  to  remove  the  com- 
pany's appointee  and  name  his  own  secretary  and  confidant, 
Cornelius  van  Tienhoven.  The  character  1  of  the  appointee 
and  the  unwonted  assumption  of  authority  were  both  re- 
sented by  the  populace,  and  before  the  city  was  a  year  old  a 
petition  was  presented  to  the  magistrates,  "  that  a  Burgher 
Schout  may  be  chosen  and  qualified  and  that  the  Company's 
Fiscal  may  no  longer  trouble  himself  as  Schout  about 
Citizens'  cases."  In  a  memorial  to  the  directors  of  the 
West  India  Company,  under  date  of  December  24,  1653,  the 
burgomasters  and  schepens  request  that,  at  least,  they  may 
nominate  two  men,  from  whom  the  governor  and  his  coun- 
cil may  choose  one.3  Little  satisfaction  came  from  these 
petitions,  and  van  Tienhoven  remained  in  office  until  after 
the  Indian  uprising  of  1655.  The  directors  then  wrote 
to  Stuyvesant  that  they  believed  the  schout  fiscal,  "  with 
clouded  brains  filled  with  liquor,"  might  have  prevented 
even  if  he  did  not  cause  the  "  doleful  massacre,"  4  and 
Stuyvesant  felt  compelled  to  remove  him.  Even  then  he 
gave  the  people  no  voice  in  the  appointment  of  his  successor. 
Important  as  this  official  was  in  New  Amsterdam,  he  was 
even  more  so  during  the  brief  existence  of  New  Orange. 
Governor  Colve,  on  January  16,  1674,  gave  instructions 
that  "  The  Schout  shall  be  present  at  all  meetings  and  pre- 
side over  them  unless  the  Honorable  Governor  or  some  per- 
son appointed  by  him  be  present."  When,  however,  schout, 
burgomasters  and  schepens  met  as  a  court,  the  schout  having 
made  his  complaint  as  prosecutor,  had  to  "  rise  up  and  absent 
himself  from  the  Bench  during  the  decision  of  the  case."  5 

1  See   Mrs.    Schuyler   Van    Rensselaer,   History   of  New    York   City, 
vol.  i,  ch.  x  and  ch.  xi,  for  a  portrayal  of  the  same. 
-  Rec.  i\ .  Am.,  vol.  i,  p.  127. 

3  Rec.  X.  Am.,  vol.  i.  p.  144. 

4  Mrs.  Van  Rensselaer,  op.  clt.,  vol.  i,  pp.  3/5-6. 
1  Rec.  X.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  p.  37. 


IS5]  THE  WATCH  I5S 

Other  instructions  were : 

He  shall  take  care  that  the  jurisdiction  under  his  authority 
be  cleansed  of  all  vagabonds,  houses  of  ill  fame,  gaming 
houses  and  such  impurities.  He  was  to  "  execute  all  judg- 
ments of  the  Burgomasters  and  Schepens  without  relaxing 
any,  unless  with  the  advice  of  the  Court."  He  was  instructed 
plainly  not  to  presume  either  directly  or  indirectly  "  to  com- 
pound with  any  criminals,"  but  leave  them  to  the  judgment 
of  the  magistrates.  In  recognition  of  his  services  he  was  to 
receive  all  fines  imposed  during  the  year  up  to  the  amount 
of  1 200  guilders  and  half  of  all  other  fines.1 

In  the  day  time  the  security  of  the  Dutch  city  was  largely 
in  the  hands  of  this  official,  superimposed  on  magistrates  and 
burghers.  The  city  was  not  yet  two  years  old  when  the 
burgomasters  and  schepens  began  to  meditate  on  the  need  of 
protection  at  night.  A  record  of  November  9,  1654,  shows 
that  they  proposed  to  establish  a  "  Rattle  Watch  "  of  four 
to  six  men  to  guard  the  city  by  night.  Rules  for  such  a 
watch  were  to  be  prepared  and  any  citizen  desiring  to  hear 
the  same  and  undertake  the  work  was  invited  to  appear  at 
the  city  hall  a  week  later.  No  one  appeared  and  "  the  meet- 
ing adjourned  without  anything  having  been  done."  Thus, 
for  four  years  more  only  such  protection  was  afforded  the 
inhabitants  as  came  through  the  city's  schout. 

The  Indian  attacks  of  1655  already  mentioned,  the  dis- 
turbances up  the  river  in  1658,  and  the  native  fondness  of 
the  savages  for  making  their  attacks  under  cover  of  darkness 
again  suggested  the  rattle  watch,  and  it  became  a  reality 
with  the  shortening  clays  and  the  approach  of  winter  in  1658. 
The  burgomasters  engaged  Pieter  Jansen,  Hendrick  van 
Bommel,  Jan  Cornelisen  van  Vlensburg,  Jan  Pietersen. 
Gcrrit  Pietersen,  Jan  Jansen  van  Langestraat,  Hendrick 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  p.  38.  ' Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  265. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [I56 

Ruyter,  Jacques  Pryn  and  Thomas  Verdon  for  the  watch. 
They  were  to  receive  twenty-  four  stivers  per  night.  Four 
were  to  watch  one  night,  the  other  four  the  next,  and  they 
were  promised  one  or  two  beavers  with  which  to  get  candles 
and  two  to  three  hundred  pieces  of  firewood.1  With  much 
reason,  therefore,  the  above  eight  men  may  be  called  New 
York's  first  squad  of  police.  Likewise  Lodowyck  Pos, 
"  Captain  of  the  Rattle  Watch,"  2  is  the  predecessor  of  all 
our  police  captains.  In  the  case  of  Captain  Pos  the  col- 
lection of  fifteen  stivers  per  month  from  all  house  holders, 
widows  and  those  whose  husbands  are  from  home,  preachers 
and  servants  excepted,  was  authorized  for  the  support  of  the 
watch.3  He  was  instructed  to  spare  no  one  in  his  collections. 
If  he  discovered  that  any  name  was  lacking  on  the  list  given 
him,  he  was  to  give  in  the  same  in  writing  to  the  burgo- 
masters. As  he  went  his  rounds,  if  any  one  threatened  him, 
he  was  to  complain  of  the  offender  to  the  burgomasters.4  The 
duties  of  this  rattle  watch  were  elaborately  defined  under 
seventeen  "items."5  The  watchmen  were  expected  to  appear 
promptly  on  the  ringing  of  the  bell,  to  supply  a  substitute 
if  detained  by  reasonable  business,  not  to  report  for  service 
drunk  nor  commit  "  any  opposition,  insolence  or  impurity  " 
within  city  hall  square  or  in  going  the  rounds;  not  to  go 
away  from  the  watch  without  cause  nor  to  go  to  sleep  while 
on  watch  nor  to  "  lie  still  when  people  call  Val  Val."  nor  to 
"  blaspheme  the  name  of  God."  Xo  one  was  to  fight  with 
another  on  the  watch  or  even  in  the  morning  coming  from 
the  watch  ;  indeed  the  watchman  was  not  allowed  to  express 
a  desire  to  fight  or  challenge  any  one  to  fight  or  to  threaten 
to  "  beat  "  him  in  the  mornin  after  the  watch  was  dismissed. 


1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  p.  195.  -Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  198. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  202.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  200,  201. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  106-7. 


THE  WATCH 


157 


Penalties  were  attached  for  the  violation  of  orders,  vary- 
ing from  six  stivers  (i2c)  to  six  guilders  ($2.40).  All 
fines,  as  well  as  presents  or  fees,  were  to  be  pooled  and 
divided  among  the  members  four  times  a  year.  Further- 
more, the  occasion  of  their  receiving  this  money  was  not 
to  be  celebrated  by  any  "  drinking  meeting."  The  series  of 
negations  or  prohibitions  ends  with  the  positive  instruction 
that  they  "  shall  be  bound  on  going  the  rounds  to  call  out 
how  late  it  is,  at  all  corners  of  the  streets  from  nine  O'Clock 
in  the  evening  until  the  reveille  beat  in  the  morning." 

The  English  at  New  Haven  had  established  a  watch  for 
service  both  at  night  and  on  Sunday  some  eighteen  years 
earlier,  but  there  is  very  little  to  indicate  that  the  Dutch 
borrowed  their  regulations.  There  it  was  a  drum-beat  rather 
than  a  bell  that  summoned  the  watch.  Six  men  and  a  mas- 
ter of  the  watch  made  up  one  such  night  guard,  and  there 
were  in  1642  thirty-one  separate  watches,  comprising  two 
hundred  and  seventeen  men.  In  forming  the  membership 
of  a  watch,  (i  young  and  less  satisfying  persons  shall  be 
joyned  with  another  more  antient  and  trusty."  What  the 
Dutch  divined  in  advance  and  embodied  in  their  regulations, 
the  English  made  known  by  special  proclamation,  in  August 
1642,  as  f  ollows  :  "  henceforwarde  none  of  the  watchmen 
shall  have  liberty  to  sleep  during  the  watch."  While  the 
New  Haven  watch  was  considered  a  part  of  the  military,  the 
New  Amsterdam  watch  was  purely  a  citizens'  affair. 

On  January  ro,  i  66  1  .  apparently  after  the  "Rattle  Watch" 
had  been  allowed  to  lapse,  it  was  revived.  Eight  men,  in- 
cluding only  two  of  the  first  watch,  took  the  oath  of  fidelity 
to  the  instructions  of  1658  and  were  employed  by  the  burgo- 
masters at  eighteen  guilders  per  month,  practically  the  same 
compensation  as  before."  At  this  time  no  one  was  con- 

1  Lcvcrmore,  C.  H..  Republic  of  Xeu1  llarcr.  pn.  51-8. 
*  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vol,  vii,  p.  265. 


1 58        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [j^g 

sidered  eligible  for  service  on  the  watch  who  did  not  live 
within  the  city  gates.  Any  one  inclined  to  leave  the  watch 
was  called  upon  now  to  give  notice  to  the  burgomasters  four- 
teen days  previous  or  lose  his  pay  for  the  month.  Pos 
was  again  made  captain  of  the  watch  at  ten  guilders  per 
month,  although  informed  by  the  burgomasters  that  some 
complaints  had  been  lodged  against  him.  He  must  take  care 
that  every  one  come  to  the  watch  in  his  turn.  Also,  if  fire 
should  break  out,  he  was  to  attend  to  it  and  expect  the  as- 
sistance of  that  half  of  the  watch  which  was  not  on  duty.1 
Thus  we  see  the  functions  of  police  captain  and  fire  captain 
were  at  first  lodged  in  the  same  man.  The  captain  was 
further  instructed  not  to  exempt  the  company's  servants 
from  the  watch  tax ;  also  he  must  show  the  burgomasters  a 
list  of  the  street  corners  where  the  watch  should  call  out 
the  hours. 

We  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  watch  was  main- 
tained under  much  the  same  regulations  after  New  Amster- 
dam became  New  York,  in  1664.  In  November  1665,  the 
number  watching  each  night  was  increased  to  six.2  In  de- 
fault of  watching  the  court  declared  (January  5,  1674) 
that  every  man  should  pay  two  shillings  for  "  every  neglect 
of  duty  without  respect  of  persons/'  In  case  of  refusal  to 
pay  the  constables  were  empowered  to  "  distreyne."  3 

With  Dutch  re-occupation,  in  July  1673,  the  ordinances 
show  (December  27,  1673)  that  the  burgher  watch  was  now 
to  be  summoned  by  beating  of  a  drum  instead  of  the  ringing 
of  a  bell.  All  persons  were  forbidden  to  enter  or  leave  the 
city,  except  through  the  city  gate.  ''  on  pain  of  DEATH," 
and  no  one  except  the  watch  was  allowed  on  the  bulwarks 
or  bastions  between  sunset  and  sunrise,  ''  on  pain  of  bodily 
correction."  4 

1  Rec.  X.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  264-5.       2 Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  320. 

3J/.  C.  M.,  February  9.  1675.  *  Re c.  -V.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  35-6. 


159]  THE 

As  now,  in  tracing  the  development  of  the  watch,  we  leave 
Dutch  control  behind,  we  must  consider  the  constable  again. 
During  the  first  English  occupation,  the  people  were  content 
to  be  protected  much  as  they  had  been  before  1664.  The 
schout  was  designated  sheriff.  We  look  in  vain  to  find  a 
constable  connected  with  the  city  government  until  October 
27,  1669,  when  the  mayor's  court  appointed  Warnaer  Wes- 
sels  to  that  office  and  requested  him  to  appear  to  take  oath.1 
In  his  capacity  of  constable  he  brought  two  men  before  the 
court  (May  10,  1670)  with  the  complaint  that  they  refused 
to  obey  his  order  to  assist  him  in  bringing  a  drunken  Indian 
to  the  city  hall.  The  defendants  were  fined  six  guilders 
each.2  To  some  extent  he  appears  to  have  been  relieving 
the  sheriff,  but  he  was  not  yet  so  important  an  official  as  in 
the  towns  of  Long  Island,3  or  even  in  New  Harlem.4 

With  the  second  English  occupation,  however,  the  tradi- 
tional importance  of  the  constable  in  English  communities 
clearly  applies.  The  watch  was  now  called  "  The  Constables 
Wattch,"  because  it  was  he  or  his  deputy  who  was  respon- 
sible for  locking  the  city  gates  "  before  nine  of  the  Clock  " ; 
it  was  he  who  called  the  roll  of  the  watchmen  after  the  gates 
were  shut,  "  the  faylers  to  be  marked."  It  was  the  con- 
stable also  who  gave  to  the  mayor  an  account  of  any  dis- 
orders that  occurred  during  the  night's  watch.  A  sergeant 
or  corporal  of  the  watch  assumed  charge  of  the  force  after 
the  roll  had  been  called ;  his  instructions  directed  him  ex- 
plicitly to  "  come  with  his  Halberd  "  and  see  that  the  others 
had  each  a  sword  and  "  good  halfe  Pike."  He  was  to  see 
that  "  centinall  "  duty  was  equally  proportioned,  one  hour  at 
a  time  to  be  the  limit.  Rounds  of  the  city  were  to  be  made 
at  least  three  times  every  night  and  the  vicinity  of  the  bridge 

1  Rcc.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vi,  p.  203.  '2Ibid.,  vol.  vi.  p.  233. 

'Thompson,  B.  F.,  History  of  Long  Island,  vol.  i,  p.  140. 
4  Riker,  History  of  Harlem,  pp.  241-2. 


i6o       A'£W  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [160 

must  have  special  attention.1  Shirking  sentinel  duty  or  ab- 
sence from  the  watch,  card  playing,  swearing,  cursing,  drink- 
ing and  fighting,  were  all  subject  to  fines  and  in  general  these 
fines  were  larger  than  those  of  Dutch  days.2  Then,  quite 
as  much  as  now,  it  was  recognized  that  the  city  needed  to  be 
protected  from  the  very  watchmen  who  were  supposed  to 
protect  her. 

It  was  recognized  also  that  friction  was  possible  among 
the  watch,  "  upon  the  account  of  being  of  different  nations." 
An  English  constable,  too,  very  likely  might  not  have  the 
support  of  the  Dutch  members  of  the  watch.  A  case  in 
point  appears  in  the  records  of  the  mayor's  court  under  date 
of  January  15,  1678,  when  Constable  Paul  Richards  com- 
plained of  being  assaulted  by  one  Jacob  Smith.  The  com- 
plete record  is  as  follows  : 

The  Pit.  complaines  against  the  Deft. 

Mr.  Paul  Richards     for  that  hee  the  15th  day  of  this  Instant 

Constable  the  Pit.  being-  att  the  Citty  hall  upon  the 

vs.  Watch  the  Deft,  with  force  and  Armes 

Jacob  Smith  (viz)    with    Swords    Staves    &    Knives 

upon  ye  Pit.  made  an  Assault  contrary 

to  ye  Peace  of  our  Sovereign  Lord  ye  King  &c. 

Ordered  that  the  Deft,  find  Sufficient  Security  in  ^25  for 
his  good  behaviour  till  next  Assize  and  pay  for  his  offense 
20  s.  to  the  Towne  and  forfeite  his  Sword  to  the  Provost  and 
pay  costs  and  fyne  all  that  was  upon  the  watch  and  not  assist- 
ing and  Aiding  the  constable  2  s.  6  d.  a  peece  and  to  pay 
Costs. 

Even  in  the  "  good  old  days  ''  an  occasional  shirk  ap- 
peared. During  the  latter  part  of  the  summer  of  1677  the 

1  Note  the  similar  Boston  regulation  of  1662:  "That  they  vigilantlye 
view  the  waterside  and  motion  of  vessels  about  the  shoore."     Boston 
Town  Records,  1660-1701,  p.  9. 

2  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  8-9. 


l6l]  THE  WATCH  X6i 

constable  complained  to  the  mayor  on  account  of  "  ye 
watch  being  but  few  in  number,  but  Six  men."  *  The 
mayor  ordered  the  constable  to  go  to  the  house  of  one 
Thomas  Taylor,  "  being  ye  said  Taylors  watch  night," 
and  demand  of  him  to  come  and  "  doe  his  duty  upon  ye 
watch  as  others  did."  Whereupon  Taylor  proceeded  to 
hedge;  he  did  not  know  whether  it  was  his  night  or  "  noe." 
Of  this,  however,  he  was  assured  by  the  constable,  Jacob 
Molyne.  This  did  not  avail,  and  we  read  from  the  record 
that  "  ye  Constable  after  pers wading  all  ye  wayes  he  Could 
to  get  him  to  ye  Guard,"  received  the  answer  of  the  small 
boy  who  does  not  want  to  go  to  church,  "  that  he  was  not 
well."  Back  went  the  constable  to  the  mayor,  who  insti- 
tuted an  examination  of  the  constable  and  watch,  but  could 
not  find  that  "  ye  sayd  Tho.  ayled  anything,"  and  com- 
manded the  constable  to  fetch  him.  Still  he  "  denyed  "  to 
come  until  Molyne  commanded  him  in  "  ye  King's  name." 
This  authority  prevailed  and  he  followed  the  "  Constable  to 
ye  guard  but  went  away  in  a  very  short  time  after  hee  Came. 
unknowne."  The  court  fined  him  for  "  Contempt  to  ye  Au- 
thority of  this  Citty."  2 

Evidently  Taylor  was  not  the  only  transgressor,  for  upon 
the  1 8th  of  December  1678  the  provost  received  an  order 
as  follows : 

Forasmuch  as  I  am  informed  that  several  persons  doe  refuse 
or  neglect  to  Watch  or  to  pay  for  ye  same  and  that  severall 
others  doe  not  conforme  themsellves  according  to  the  Orders 
sett  up  in  the  Watchhouse  in  ye  Citty  hall.  These  are  therefoie 
to  charge  and  comand  you  that  you  forthwith  levy  of  all 
and  every  person  &  persons  so  neglecting  &  offending  all  and 

1  Probably  the  number  needed  on  the  watch  varied  with  the  season. 
Fifteen  names  are  recorded  as  watching  on  the  night  of  November  I, 
1679.  Cf.  M.  C.  M.,  November  2,  1670. 

-  Ibid.,  August  2,  1677. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

every  such  Fine  &  Fines,  summe  and  summe's  of  Money  as  in 
&  by  the  said  orders  is  mentioned  &  expressed  (yet  unpaid) 
And  the  Arrearages  thereof  of  all  &  every  the  persons  so  re- 
fuseing  or  offending  by  Distresse  &  Sale  of  the  Offenders 
goods.1 

"All  and  every  person  and  persons  "  in  the  above  command 
was  very  sweeping  and  included,  of  course,  the  elders  and 
deacons,  who  at  once  petitioned  successfully  to  be  excused 
from  the  watch.2  If  any  of  those  elders  and  deacons  had 
been  members  of  the  watch  on  November  I,  1679,  they  might 
have  shared  in  quite  a  "  mix-up." 

In  the  mayor's  court  the  next  day  William  Merritt,3  who 
figured  prominently  in  the  city  affairs  during  the  next 
twenty  years,  testified  that  he  heard  a  noise  in  the  street 
the  night  before  near  his  house.  He  went  out  and  saw  the 
watch  fighting  with  some  Englishmen  and  heard  some  of 
them  cry  out,  "  Slay  the  English  doggs,  slay  the  English 
doggs."  There  was  further  testimony  involving  pulling  by 
the  hair,  beating  "  very  sorely  "  and  "  breaking  his  head  in 
several  places,"  that  led  the  court  to  declare,  "  the  whole 
watch  are  fined  for  the  battery  and  breach  of  the  peace  Tenn 
pounds." 

Such  a  watch  would  scarcely  find  great  favor  with  the 
English  governor  and  his  council.  Furthermore  there  were 
disorders  occasioned  by  Indians  and  slaves  which  led  the 
governor  to  establish  a  military  watch.5  The  orders  for  this 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i.  pp.  71-2. 

-M.  C.  M.,  January  14,  1679;  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  72. 

3 An  Englishman,  of  course.  It  will  not  do  for  the  reader  to  decide 
the  nationality  from  the  name.  See  the  illuminating  chapter  in  Mrs. 
Schuyler  Van  Rensselaer's  History  of  New  York  (vol.  ii,  ch.  xix). 

4M.  C.  M.,  November  2,  1679. 

6  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  90-92.  The  orders  given  for  this  watch  are 
without  date,  but  when  they  are  considered  in  connection  with  other 
minutes,  1682  seems  the  probable  year. 


163]  THE  WATCH 

watch  were  issued  over  the  signature  of  A.  Brockholls,  act- 
ing governor  since  the  departure  of  Andros,  and  show  some 
changes  from  the  orders  of  1676.  Militia  companies  and 
their  officers  were  to  take  the  place  of  citizens  and  constables. 
The  "  good  halfe  pike  "  was  to  be  displaced  by  the  gun. 
Sentinel  duty  may  now  continue  for  two  hours.  In  making 
their  frequent  rounds  the  watch  must  have  concern  for  good 
order  in  "  Publique  Houses  "  and  permit  no  drinking  in  such 
after  ten  o'clock.  "Any  Loose  Vagrant  or  Disorderly  per- 
sons that  Cannot  Give  a  Good  Account  of  their  Lives  and 
Conversacons  and  of  their  Occassions  abroad  or  up  in  the 
night,"  were  to  be  arrested  and  brought  before  the  mayor 
the  next  morning.  The  constable's  only  duty  connected  with 
the  watch  was  to  accompany  the  marshal  and  collect  all  for- 
feitures and  fines  once  in  three  days.2 

Two  years  later  a  new  governor  had  arrived,  in  the  person 
of  Thomas  Dongan,  and  almost  coincident  with  his  arrival 
appears  a  move  on  the  part  of  the  common  council  in  anti- 
cipation of  a  return  to  the  constables'  watch.  This  bears 
the  date  of  March  29,  1684,  and  provided  that  the  con- 
stables of  the  five  wards  south  of  the  Fresh  Water  2  were  to 
list  all  males  over  sixteen  in  their  several  wards,  "  that  A 
watch  may  be  Settled  and  Apoynted."  On  July  10  fol- 
lowing it  was  "  thought  Convenient  That  the  military  Offi- 
cers and  Troopers  "  be  excused  from  the  watch  and  that  the 
constables  of  the  five  wards  before  mentioned  take  turns 
each  night  and  hire  eight  persons  each  at  twelve  pence  per 
night  to  assist  them.  This  money  was  to  be  paid  out  of  the 
city  treasury  and  it  was  proposed  to  raise  the  money  by  a 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  90-92. 

*  A  name  commonly  applied  to  a  body  of  water  located  where  the 
Tombs  prison  is  now. 
3  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  147. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

tax  "  On  Each  house."  *  It  would  seem  from  this  that  the 
city  chose  to  tax  itself  for  a  civilian  watch  rather  than  to 
continue  the  military  one.  A  number  of  orders  for  a  con- 
stables' watch  ~  bearing  no  date,  are  probably  to  be  associated 
with  the  renewed  establishment.  These  bear  close  re- 
semblance to  the  orders  of  1676.  The  constable  or  his 
deputy  must  now  remain  on  the  watch  all  the  time.  Ex- 
perience with  men  like  Thomas  Taylor  doubtless  suggested 
that  the  marshal  notify  those  whose  turn  it  was  to  watch. 
And  after  that  melee  of  November  i,  1679,  we  are  prepared 
to  read  that  in  going  the  rounds  the  watch  must  be  "  Still 
and  quiett  And  not  Suffer  any  Laughing  or  Loud  talking  in 
the  Streets."  Newcomers  after  one  month's  residence 
were  to  be  listed  to  "  watch  and  ward,"  as  well  as  to  pay 
all  taxes  and  assessments.3  The  constables'  watch  was 
apparently  still  in  operation  five  years  later,  because  it  is 
recorded  that  the  bellman  4  was  paid  £11  45  for  his  services 
(£8  14  at  one  time  and  £2  10  at  another)  / 

However,  the  first  intercolonial  war  commenced  in 
1689.  The  French  and  Indians  fell  upon  Schenectady, 
February  9.  1690.  It  was  also  the  time  when  strife  was 
rampant  within  the  city  between  the  Leislerians  and  their 
opponents.  Therefore  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  captains 
instead  of  constables  in  charge  of  the  watch,  or  "  Night 
Guard,"  °  as  it  was  now  more  usually  termed,  in  the  records 
of  the  following  winter.7 

The  expense  to  the  city  for  firewood  and  candles  for  the 
watch,  which  had  usually  been  inconsiderable  (thirty-six 
shillings  for  wood,  February  18,  1692). 8  increased  greatly 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  153.  *lbid.,  vol.  i,  p.  93-4. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  154.  4  C/.,  p.  165. 

5  A/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  205-6.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  39O- 

7  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  266.  9  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  266. 


165]  THE  WATCH  ^5 

in  the  latter  years  of  this  war.  Warrants  for  the  payment 
of  £40  12  were  ordered  signed  by  the  mayor  on  October 
12,  I695.1  For  the  year  ending  August  i,  1696,  the  city 
handed  out  £54  3  3  ~  against  an  estimate  of  £50  that  was 
reported  November  19,  1695. 3  The  next  year  £63  was  the 
amount  required.  During  these  years  seven  captains  of 
militia  were  reimbursed  at  the  end  of  the  year  for  money 
they  had  advanced. 

The  war  closed  with  the  Peace  of  Ryswick,  September  20, 
1697.  Very  significant  it  was,  therefore,  that  exactly  two 
months  later  (November  20,  1697)  Governor  Fletcher  sug- 
gested to  the  city  magistrates  that  the  city  militia  might  be 
displaced  by  a  civil  watch.  The  mayor  was  therefore  au- 
thorized to  arrange  with  "  four  Sober  honest  men  "  for 
such  service  on  "  Such  Reasonable  Terms  as  he  Shall  Judge 
Need  full."  *  So.  after  some  years,  the  ringing  of  the  bell  at 
street  corners  was  heard  again  during  the  night  and  the 
term  "  Bellman  "  came  more  and  more  to  take  the  place  of 
"  Watch."  Sometimes  we  find  "  Watch  and  Bellmen."  5 
Fines  and  forfeitures  were  now  done  away  with.  The  men 
appointed  had  to  go  under  £500  bond  to  "  well  and  truely 
Execute  the  Said  Office."  Each  hour  now,  more  frequently 
than  before,  they  were  to  "  goe  round  the  Citty  "  and  "  pro- 
claime  the  season  of  the  weather  and  the  hour  of  the  Night," 
as  they  rang  the  bell.  If  they  met  any  people  disturbing 
the  peace  or  lurking  about  any  one's  house  or  committing  a 
theft,  they  were  to  "  take  the  most  prudent  way  they  Can 
to  Secure  ye  said  Persons  Untill  the  Next  Morning  that 
they  may  be  Examined  by  the  Mayor."  They  were  to  ex- 
pect the  aid  of  the  high  constable  and  all  other  constables 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  384.  '  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  413. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  390.  '  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  -x>. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  207,  209.  fi  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  24. 


!(36        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

in  the  execution  of  this  duty.1  Theirs  also  was  the  care  that 
"  No  damage  be  done  in  this  City  by  fire  or  Other 
Casualties." 

The  bellmen  were  regularly  supplied  with  bell,  lantern  and 
hour  glass3  (sometimes  a  two  hour  glass).4  They  were 
paid  a  lump  sum  that  covered  their  expense  for  wood  and 
candles,5  but  a  portion  of  this  sum  would  be  advanced  "  for 
providing  them  with  fire,  Candles,  &c."  G  It  is  not  easy 
to  understand  why  it  was  necessary  to  pay  the  four  men 
£60  in  i6c)8>,~  and  only  about  half  as  much  from  and  after 
1705.°  Five  months  of  service  in  the  winter,  from  about 
November  I  to  about  April  i,  was  the  usual  agreement.8 
During  the  winter  of  1712-3  six  men  were  employed  for 
£5 1,9  and  the  same  number  served  the  following  winter. 
In  1714,  arrangements  were  made  for  some  bellmen  for  the 
summer  season;  two  men,  serving  all  the  time  from  May  i 
to  November  i,  were  paid  £8  each,  and  a  third,  £4  for  part 
of  the  time.10  From  that  time  on  (until  1731)  there  was  a 
night  watch  during  the  whole  year,  generally  of  four  men. 
who  were  paid  £36  for  the  winter  season  and  £28  for  the 
summer.11 

With  the  reestablishment  of  the  citizens'  watch  after  the 
First  Intercolonial  War  it  is  noticeable  that  the  constables  do 
not  seem  to  have  the  same  responsibility  as  before.  The 
watch  was  responsible  directly  to  the  mayor,  although  the 
latter  would  appear  to  have  made  some  use  of  the  marshal 
therewith.  The  name  of  this  interesting  official,  who  might 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  62.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  243. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  291.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  454. 

'  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  62.  8  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  313. 

T  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  28. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  207,  243,  281,  364,  454. 

9  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  20. 

10  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  79.  u  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  217. 


167]  T^E  WATCH 

be  called  the  forerunner  of  our  police  commissioner,  first 
appeared  in  the  common  council's  petition  to  Dongan  in 
1683,  and  the  latter  wanted  to  know  what  was  meant  by 
"  Marshall."  He  was  described  as  "  an  under  officer  As- 
sistant to  ye  sheriffe  in  serving  writts  sumoneing  Jurys  look- 
ing after  prisners  &  attending  ye  Court."  The  common 
council  offered  the  further  explanation  that  the  marshal  and 
the  "  Cryer  "  had  hitherto  been  the  same  person,  and  they 
continued  to  be  one  person  under  the  charter.1  Sometimes 
the  terra  "Cryer  of  the  Mayors  Court"2  is  used;  some- 
times "Marshall  to  the  Court;""  sometimes  "Cryer  and 
Merchall  " ;  *  sometimes  "  Marshall  and  Bellringer."  5  In 
this  latter  case  bellringer  must  not  be  confused  with  the 
bellman  of  the  night  watch,  the  former  ringing  his  bell  as 
a  summons  to  the  mayor's  court.6  Enoch  Hill  was  ap- 
pointed by  Mayor  De  Peyster,  November  8,  1698,  as  "his 
Marshall  and  Messenger  to  the  Common  Council."  The 
mayor  expressed  a  desire  that  the  marshal  be  allowed  "A 
Coate  Breeches  Hatt  Shoes  Stockings  and  A  Cloake  of  ye 
Citty  Livery  And  A  Beedles  Staff  att  ye  Citty  Charge." 
The  board  agreed  and  desired  that  the  "  Livery  be  blew 
with  An  Orange  List."  This  is  the  first  evidence  of  any- 
thing like  a  policeman's  uniform  in  the  history  of  the  city. 
The  marshal,  with  a  constable  to  help  him,  had  been  assigned 
to  secure  the  payment  of  fines  from  the  military  watch  in 
Andros's  time,  and  during  the  military  watch  in  the  time 
of  the  war  he  is  recorded  as  having  bought  wood  for  the 
watch.8  Later  on  he  made  frequent  "  Journeys  to  Harlem," 
and  in  one  instance  he  was  the  city  official  who  provided  a 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  106.      *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  22J. 
3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  209.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  109. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  289.  «  c'/..  ch.  iv.  p.  114,  note. 

i  .\f.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  65-6.  a  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  266. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

coffin  for  a  frozen  man.1  He  would  certainly  appear  to  have 
earned  his  salary,  which  was  seven  and  one-half  pounds  per 
year  2  until  1695,  when  it  was  increased  to  £10  on  petition  of 
English  Smith,  who  "  found  itt  Impossible  to  Live  by  A 
Dependance  on  ye  Present  Sallary."  s 

Commencing  in  1703,  the  marshal  was  reimbursed  periodi- 
cally for  "  Candles  for  the  Constables  Watch."  *  This  is 
somewhat  mystifying,  because  the  salary  paid  the  bellmen 
was  understood  to  cover  "  fire  and  Candle  light."  When 
the  minutes  are  examined  closely,  however,  it  is  noticed 
that  these  payments  cover  expense  for  candles  furnished 
during  the  summer  season  only;  also  that  the  last  payment 
of  this  kind  was  made  in  I/I3,5  just  before  the  bellmen's 
watch  was  continued  through  the  year.  It  seems  reason- 
able, therefore,  to  conclude  that  some  form  of  a  "  Constables 
watch,"  distinct  from  the  bellmen,  was  maintained  during 
the  summer  season  from  1703  to  1714,  for  which  the  mar- 
shal provided  candles.  In  further  support  of  this  conclu- 
sion, the  reader  will  recall  that  bellmen  might  call  on  the 
constables  for  assistance.6 

"  Police  headquarters  "  of  the  present  day  date  back  to 
the  time  of  King  William's  War,  when  there  was  a  "  Roome 
Appointed  for  the  Guard,"  probably  in  the  city  hall.7  With- 
out reasonable  doubt  it  was  a  similar  room  in  the  new  city 
hall  which  was  made  fit  for  the  watch,  July  26,  1707. 8  It 
was  spoken  of  as  a  "  Watch  house,"  when  supplied  with  a 
table  and  racks  by  the  marshall  in  I7I2,9  and  again  referred 
to  by  the  old  name  "  Guard  Room  "  later  in  the  same  year.10 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  309.    *Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  322. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  390.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  242,  277,  288,  309,  315-6. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  50.  6  Cf.,  pp.  165-6. 

7Af.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  321  and  351.       *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  325. 

•  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  6.  10  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  12. 


CHAPTER  VII 
FIRE 

NEW  YORK  City's  first  fire  engines  were  ordered  from 
London  in  1731.  *  At  that  time  hand  grenades  and  other 
chemical  extinguishers  had  not  been  invented.  Yet  the 
story  of  the  days  of  buckets,  hooks  and  ladders  for  fire  pro- 
tection is  not  without  its  interest. 

The  homes  of  the  early  settlers  were  very  closely  grouped 
at  the  southern  end  of  the  island.  The  buildings  were 
nearly  all  constructed  of  wood  and  roofed  with  reeds.  In 
many  cases  even  the  chimneys  were  wooden  or  plastered.2 
Fire  naturally  resulted,  and  so  we  find  fire  regulations  and 
fire  officials  antedating  the  birth  of  the  municipality. 

The  recent  novel  suggestion  of  the  city's  fire  commis- 
sioner, that  the  owner  be  charged  with  the  cost  of  fighting 
preventable  fires,3  is  not  so  new  after  all  when  we  read 
among  the  very  first  ordinances,  January  23,  1648,*  "  if  any- 
body's house  is  burned  either  by  negligence  or  his  own  fire, 
he  shall  pay  a  fine  of  25  florins"  ($10).  Henceforth  no 
wooden  or  merely  plastered  chimneys  were  to  be  put  into 
any  house  between  the  Fort  and  the  Fresh  \Yater."  Such 
chimneys  already  in  use  might  remain  at  the  discretion  of 
the  firemasters.  These  officials,  four  in  number,  were  to 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  iv,  p.  56. 
* Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  i,  p.  5. 
*Ar.  Y.  Times,  October  10,  1914. 
4 Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  i,  p.  5. 

*  A  pond  formerly  situated  where  "  The  Tombs  "  now  stands. 
169]  169 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

visit,  whenever  they  pleased,1  the  chimneys  in  all  the  houses 
and  ascertain  if  they  were  clean  swept,  collecting  "  imme- 
diately without  contradiction '"  a  fine  of  three  guilders 
($1.20)  for  all  that  were  "neglected  and  foul."  Very 
sensibly  all  fines  were  to  be  applied  to  the  purchase  of  fire 
ladders,  hooks  and  buckets.2 

A  little  more  than  two  years  after  the  city  was  chartered, 
Director  Stuyvesant  issued  another  order,  important  in  this 
connection,  to  the  effect  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  province 
the  coming  spring  must  move  closer  together,  that  they  might 
be  better  protected  against  attacks  and  surprises  by  the 
savages.  This  suggested  greater  danger  from  fire  and  hence- 
forth, in  order  to  prevent  sudden  conflagrations,  no  house 
was  to  be  roofed  with  straw  or  reeds  and  no  chimney  made 
of  shingles  or  wood.3 

It  was  impossible  for  a  fire  master  in  a  small  settlement 
like  New  Amsterdam  to  become  a  popular  idol.  The  direc- 
tor's appointees  of  1648  did  not  consider  that  they  had 
life  positions.  Even  before  the  order  of  1656,  the  burgo- 
masters of  the  infant  city  had  emphasized  to  the  provincial 
council  (April  12,  1655)  the  necessity  that  fire  inspectors 
be  appointed,  and  they  presented  to  them  a  list  of  nominees 
of  whom  the  council  on  the  following  day  chose  three  as 
"  Fire  Inspectors  of  this  City  of  Amsterdam  in  N.  Nether- 
land."  4 

The  initiative  of  the  city  officials  became  very  noticeable 
immediately  after  the  orders  of  1656.  They  state  that  a 
great  many  people  within  the  city  limits  paid  little  attention 
to  their  fireplaces  and  chimney  sweeping,  "  which  has  already 

1  A  more  specific  direction  was  given  September  28,  1648  (cf.  Rec. 
N.  Am.,  vol.  i,  p.  n). 

*  Rec.  N.  Am,,  vol.  i,  p.  5. 

*  January  18,  1656.     Cf.  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  i,  pp.  19-20. 
'Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  i,  p.  304. 


FIRE  171 

caused  fires  several  times,"  and  they  announced  that,  with  the 
approval  of  the  director  general  and  council,  they  had  ap- 
pointed as  firemasters  Hendrick  Hendricksen  Kip,  Govert 
Loockermans  and  Christian  Barens.  In  all  the  houses  with- 
in the  jurisdiction  of  the  city  they  were  to  do  for  the  pre- 
vention of  fires  what  was  necessary  and  to  collect  such  fines 
as  were  prescribed  in  the  previous  orders  of  the  provincial 
authorities.1 

Kip  and  Loockermans  had  been  appointees  of  the  direc- 
tor the  preceding  year  and  may  have  been  reappointed  out 
of  courtesy  to  him.  Both  men  were  subsequently  city  offi- 
cials of  prominence,  but  could  hardly  have  achieved  their 
reputations  as  firemasters.  A  suggestion  of  their  inefficiency 
is  found  in  the  court  minutes  of  November  20,  1656. 
Jacob  Stevenson,  who  had  also  gained  notoriety  in  other 
ways,  had  been  warned  by  the  fire  inspectors  to  repair  his 
house  or  pull  it  down.  Still  it  stood  and  that  no  attention 
was  given  to  the  warning  regarding  repairs  is  indicated  by 
the  complaint  finally  made  by  a  neighbor  who  said  that 
nothing  else  was  to  be  expected,  not  only  by  himself  but  by 
the  whole  street,  but  a  sudden  destruction  by  fire.  An  or- 
der of  the  court  now  included  the  sheriff,  who,  together  with 
the  fire  inspectors,  was  ordered  to  forbid,  within  twenty-four 
hours,  the  said  Stevenson  making  any  more  fire  there  under 
such  circumstances,  or  they  might  pull  down  the  chimney 
or  do  anything  else  they  deemed  proper. 

Neither  were  the  fire  wardens  of  the  following  year  taken 
seriously  by  the  inhabitants,  as  is  illustrated  by  the  follow- 
ing incident :  Madaleen  Dirckx  and  her  bridegroom  were 
brought  before  the  court  of  burgomasters  and  schepens 
charged  with  insulting  the  firewardens  on  the  public  high- 
way and  with  causing  a  street  riot.  A  request  was  made 

1  Rcc.  A".  Am.,  vol.  i,  pp.  21-2. 


Ij2        NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

that  punishment  be  imposed  on  the  offenders  in  order  that 
the  firewardens'  "  quality  "  might  be  maintained.  Madam 
alone  appeared  at  court  and  admitted  that  she  and  her  sister 
passed  by  the  door  of  firewarden  Litschoe  and,  "  as  they 
always  joked  when  the  firewardens  came  to  their  house,  she 
said  .  .  .  'there  is  the  chimney  sweep  in  the  door;  his  chimney 
is  well  swept/  and  not  another  word  was  said  about  it." 
A  fine  of  two  pounds  Flemish  was  imposed  and  the  culprit 
was  notified  to  avoid  all  such  similar  faults.1 

We  know  that  there  were  many  thatched  roofs  still  un- 
removed  by  April  1658,  because  the  owners  thereof,  having 
petitioned,  were  granted  two  months  additional  time  by 
the  governor  and  council,  "  on  condition  of  clearing  all  away 
in  that  time."  Meanwhile  they  were  to  be  on  their  guard 
against  damage.2 

It  is  amusing,  four  months  later  (August  12,  1658),  to 
find  the  schout  called  into  service  by  the  court  as  one  who 
could  perhaps  accomplish  what  the  firewardens  had  failed 
to  do.  He  was  directed  to  warn  all  who  had  placed  thatched 
roofs  on  their  houses  or  who  had  plastered  chimneys  to  re- 
move them.3  Even  the  dignity  of  this  high  official  behind 
the  order  did  not  very  deeply  impress  the  Dutch  burgher. 
It  was  evidently  as  difficult  then,  as  it  is  now,  for  men  to 
submit  to  the  interference  of  the  law  in  what  they  con- 
sider a  purely  personal  matter. 

In  endeavoring  to  carry  out  the  above  regulation  the  schout 
reported,  a  month  later,  that  in  execution  of  the  burgo- 
masters' order,  "  he  was  with  those  who  still  have  thatched 
roofs  and  plaistered  chimnies  and  notified  them  to  remove 
them,  and  that  they  made  fun  at  him."  He  accordingly  re- 
quested that  a  penalty  be  fixed  for  disobedience.* 

lRec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  p.  146.  ''•Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  184. 

s  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  419.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  424. 


173]  FIRE  173 

In  1658,  the  same  year  in  which  the  neighbor  of  the  afore- 
mentioned Stevenson  l  voiced  his  feeling  of  helplessness  in 
case  fire  should  break  out,  the  burgomasters  began  to  con- 
cern themselves  about  apparatus  for  fighting  fire.  Four  shoe- 
makers were  sent  for,  to  whom  were  shown  two  sample 
leathern  buckets  that  had  been  made  in  this  country.  They 
were  asked  "  to  give  their  opinion  thereon  and  the  lowest 
price  they  will  make  them  for."  Reinout  Reinoutsen  con- 
tracted to  make  one  hundred  and  Ariaen  van  Laar  to  make 
fifty  at  six  guilders,  ten  stivers  ($2.60)  apiece.2  The  burgh- 
ers were  taxed  for  bucket  money,  which  was  collected  with 
considerable  difficulty.3  Early  in  the  next  year  (January 
10,  1659)  most  of  the  buckets  were  ready,  and  now  what 
should  they  do  with  them?  It  was  decided  "to  put  the 
City  Arms  on  them  and  number  them,"  and  distribute  them 
to  the  number  of  a  dozen  apiece  among  several  of  the  in- 
habitants.4 

Fire  ladders  and  fire  hooks  were  added  to  the  equipment 
in  i659,5  and  the  following  year  Jan  Jansen  Hagenaar  was 
ordered  "to  make  a  shed  to  keep  the  ladders  under,"  e  after 
he  had  looked  them  up. 

What  the  Dutch  provincial  and  municipal  authorities  both 
failed  to  accomplish  was  attempted  by  the  English  mayor 
and  aldermen  the  year  after  the  English  occupation.  Fire 
wardens  were  appointed  to  inspect  all  chimneys  and  fire- 
places when  they  think  proper,  to  impose  fines  for  foul 
chimneys,  and  to  remove  wooden  or  other  "  improper " 
ones.7  Care  of  the  equipment  now  became  definitely  a  part 
of  the  firewardens'  task.  They  were  ordered.  April  9,  1667, 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  i jr.  -AYr.  -V.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  191-2. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  102,  201,  206,  220.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  207-9. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  228.  'Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  248. 

T  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  298. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [174 

to  bring  the  fire  buckets  to  the  city  hall  and  to  have  the  use- 
less ones  repaired  and  to  mark  the  hooks  and  ladders ;  Henry 
Obe  was  ordered  to  pay  for  the  same  from  the  excise.1 
Henry  Obe  proved  to  be  a  poor  paymaster,  and  Thomas 
Hall  and  Hendrick  Williams,  firewardens,  December  i,  1668, 
had  to  take  the  matter  to  court  in  order  to  collect  150  florins 
seawant  for  having  fire  ladders  and  the  other  utensils  made. 
The  bill  was  ordered  paid  "  without  postponement  or 
delay."  2 

Some  of  the  citizens  were  negligent  about  returning  lad- 
ders and  the  like  after  fires,  as  is  shown  in  the  order  of 
August  6,  1667,  notifying  Mr.  Allard  Anthony  that,  "  in  case 
the  City's  ladders  as  well  at  his  as  at  Mr.  van  Ruyvens  and 
Paulus  Leendersens  bouweries  now  some  years  in  use,  not  re- 
turned within  10  days  from  date,  each  of  them  shall  be  con- 
demned to  have  a  new  ladder  made  for  behoof  of  the  City." 

In  1672  renewed  attention  was  given  to  the  matter  of  fire 
protection,  the  following  order  being  issued  under  date  of 
July  the  fourth;  "  Itt  is  Ordered  that  the  Buckets  &  Other 
Instruments  for  fire  belonging  to  the  Towne  shall  be  brought 
to  the  State  house  *  within  14  dayes."  5  Later,  in  October 
of  the  same  year,  firewardens  or  brandmasters,  as  they  are 
called  in  this  record,  were  elected  and  orders  regarding  their 
duties  issued : 

Whereas  itt  is  f found  necessary  that  (the)  former  Custome 
for  Ellecting  of  Brand  masters  should  bee  continued  in  this 
Citty :  The  Court  do  therefore  nominate  &  appoint  Jan  Jansen 
van  Brestede,  Evert  duycking  and  John  Cooly  to  be  brandmas- 
ters of  this  Citty  for  the  space  of  one  whole  Jeare  commencing 

1  Rec.  X.  Am.,  vol.  vi,  p.  6".  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  158. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  vi.  p.  92. 

4  We  should  call  the  "  Stadt  Huys  "  the  "  City  Hall." 
6 Rec.  A".  Am.,  vol.  vi,  p.  382. 


175]  FIRE  175 

from  the  day  of  the  date  hereof,  during  which  tyme  they  are 
hereby  Required :  as  often  as  they  shall  see  cause :  to  make  a 
View  of  all  Chimbnees  within  this  Citty  and  the  Suburbs  * 
thereof,  and  to  fine  the  owners  of  all  those  that  shall  bee  de- 
fective or  not  cleansed  accordingh  to  the  former  Customes; 
As  alsoo  to  take  ceare  that  hookes  and  Ladders  made  to  that 
purpose,  may  bee  brought  and  fastned  to  some  Convenient 
place  which  they  shall  thinke  fitt." 

During  the  second  Dutch  occupation  the  following  ordin- 
ance regarding  fire  marshals  was  issued  : 3 

Whereas  it  is  found  necessary  for  the  prevention  of  accidents 
that  the  election  and  appointment  of  Firewardens  be  continued 
within  this  City  according  to  previous  custom,  the  W.  Sellout, 
Burgomasters  and  Schepens  of  the  City  of  New  Orange  have 
therefore  nominated  and  authorized  as  they  hereby  do,  as  Fire- 
wardens of  this  City  for  the  term  of  one  current  year,  Jan 
Jansen  van  Bresteede,  Everd  Duyckingh,  Rynier  Willem- 
son,  baker,  and  Jonas  Bartelse,  who  are  hereby  requested 
and  authorized  to  execute  and  fill  the  aforesaid  office  as  Fire- 
wardens and  Chimney  Inspectors  in  such  manner  as  the  same 
has  been  heretofore  executed  and  filled  by  their  predecessors 
pursuant  to  the  Ordinances  and  Placards  thereof  existing.4 

It  is  interesting  to  note,  from  a  comparison  of  the  two 
previous  records,  the  continuance  in  office  of  two  of  the 
former  officials  under  the  English  regime,  as  well  as  the 
endeavor  to  maintain  existing  customs. 

On  January  30,  1674,  the  firewardens  gave  a  written  re- 
port of  the  number  of  fire  buckets  and  other  implements 
on  hand  and  asked  that  more  fire  hooks  and  ladders  might 
be  made.5 

^'Suburbs"  would  be  defined  then  as  the  locality  just  north  of  the 
wall. 

*  Rec.  A".  Am.,  vol.  vi,  p.  393.  '  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  35. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  35.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  49. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

The  New  Orange  board  of  firewardens  seems  to  have 
been  a  most  business-like  and  persistent  company,  for  on 
February  27,  1674,  they  presented  a  minutely  detailed 
account  of  repairs  and  equipment  that  was  necessary  em- 
phasizing fire  ladders  and  hooks.  In  their  petition  they 
set  forth  their  compliance  with  the  order  to  inspect  the 
houses  of  the  city  and  stated  that  they  had  found  "  divers 
fireplaces  very  much  exposed  to  cause  a  conflagration,"  and 
that  the  owners  had  been  warned  to  attend  to  the  same.1 
As  no  reference  was  made  to  thatched  roofs,  wooden  or  plas- 
tered chimneys  etc.,  may  we  not  infer  that  continued  pres- 
sure had  done  away  in  great  measure  at  least,  with  those  pre- 
vious sources  of  trouble?  That  the  number  was  greatly 
diminished  is  learned  from  a  record  of  February  28,  1677, 
which  gives  the  names  of  ten  people  having  houses  with  no 
chimneys  and  of  two,  with  chimneys  "  not  fitt  to  keepe  fire 
in."  Among  the  ten  were  "  ffredrick  the  Shoemaker,  Jacob 
the  Jew,  John  the  Glass  maker."  The  dozen  offenders 
were  given  three  months  to  make  their  chimneys  safe  or 
"  depart  their  houses." 

The  firewardens  also  related  that  the  city  crier  had,  in 
accord  with  their  orders,  published  throughout  the  city  that 
any  inhabitants  having  city  fire  buckets  were  to  return  them 
to  the  city  hall  or  hand  them  to  the  firewardens,  but  with  all 
their  efforts  they  had  been  able  to  collect  only  fifty-seven 
buckets,  three  of  which  had  been  left  with  Abel  Harden- 
broeck  for  repairs.  Two  old  fire  hooks  with  one  old  ladder, 
all  unfit  for  use,  were  found  at  the  city  hall.  A  request 
for  better  equipment  followed.  The  request  was  granted 
and  they  were  empowered  to  have  such  equipment  made  at 
the  city's  expense  as  they  deemed  necessary.3 

1  Rec.  -V.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  66-67.  *^-  C-  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  42-3. 

8  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vii,  pp.  66-7. 


177]  FIRE  177 

The  Dutch  magistrates  were  thus  unwittingly  building 
well  for  the  English  administration  that  was  soon  to  follow. 
One  of  the  first  records  of  the  new  mayor's  court,  March 
23,  1675,  tells  °f  tne  appointment  of  two  men  as  "  brand 
masters  to  looke  after  fovvle  Chimneys  and  fyers  in  this 
Citty  according  to  former  Custome."  Also  they  were  to 
care  for  "  the  lathers,  hookes  and  fyer  buckets."  1 

It  is  of  more  than  usual  interest  that  the  first  fine  recorded 
for  a  chimney  fire  was  imposed  January  27,  1680,  on  William 
Dervall,  a  former  mayor.2  It  will  be  a  surprise  to  most 
readers  to  learn  that  a  similar  municipal  ordinance  is  still 
in  force,  carrying  a  fine  of  five  dollars.3 

The  custom  of  building  fires  on  the  wharf  for  boiling 
pitch,  food  etc.  for  the  vessels  docked  there  came  to  be  con- 
sidered a  menace  to  such  an  extent  that  the  governor, 
October  8,  1679,  called  the  attention  of  the  common  coun- 
cil to  it  in  order  that  legislation  might  be  undertaken  to 
check  it.  The  one  and  only  place  for  pitch  boiling  was  then 
designated  by  the  common  council  to  be  "  against  the  stone 
wall  of  the  halfe  Moone  neere  the  Cytie  Wall."  This  fire 
was  to  be  extinguished  every  night.  No  fire  was  to  be  al- 
lowed aboard  any  vessel :  the  fires  where  pitch  boiling  was 
allowed  were  to  be  used  for  cooking  or  other  need,  unless 
in  "  Extremity  of  Winter  and  with  leave." 

Twenty  shillings  was  the  penalty  for  the  first  offence,  fifty 
for  the  second,  and  five  pounds  for  the  third.  The  haven 
master  was  instructed  to  inform  all  strangers  with  regard 
to  the  above-mentioned  regulations.5  A  year  later.  Xnvem- 
ber  23,  1680,  an  offender  was  caught  having  fire  in  his  boats 

1  M.  C.  M.,  March  23,  16/5.  -  Ibid.,  January  27.  1680. 

s  Principal  John  IT.  Denbigh  of  the  Morris  High  School  paid  such  a 
fine  March  4,  1911. 

4.1/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  7:-,.  'Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  7.V74- 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

and  fined  by  the  court  the  twenty  shillings  for  a  first  offence.1 
It  would  seem  as  if  the  regulations  forbidding  all  fires  on 
board  vessels  must  have  been  considered  too  strict,  for  we 
later  find,  March  22,  1684,  an  order  forbidding  fires  kept 
on  board  vessels  "  att  any  Other  tyme  than  from  Day  Light 
in  the  morning  till  the  Ringing  of  the  Citty  Bell  att  night 
under  the  Penalty  of  Tweenty  Shillings." 

Fire  regulations  again  called  for  attention  at  the  council 
meeting  of  March  15,  1683,  old  regulations  being  some- 
what amended  and  new  ones  made.  The  mayor  and  alder- 
men were  to  appoint  viewers  and  searchers  of  chimneys  and 
fire  hearths,  to  report  any  defects  to  the  court  of  mayor  and 
aldermen.  Inhabitants  were  forbidden  to  put  hay  or  any 
other  combustible  material  in  or  near  their  houses.  A  fine 
of  fifteen  shillings  was  to  be  paid  in  case  a  chimney  got  on 
fire.  Again,  provision  \vas  to  be  made  for  keeping  hooks, 
ladders  and  other  implements  in  a  convenient  place.3 

As  the  city  grew,  one  may  well  imagine  that  difficulties 
arose  in  establishing  places  which  were  convenient  for  all, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  necessarily  larger  amount  of  equipment 
to  be  furnished.  On  February  28,  1687,  the  common  coun- 
cil launched  a  new  scheme.  Each  inhabitant  of  the  city  who 
had  two  chimneys  in  his  house  was  to  have  one  bucket  on 
hand;  if  he  had  more  than  two  hearths  he  must  have  two 
buckets.  Brewers  must  have  six  buckets  and  bakers,  three. 
Time  until  the  twenty-fifth  of  the  following  September  was 
granted  for  procuring  these.4 

When  the  new  "  Viewers  and  Searchers  of  Chimneys  " 
were  appointed,  November  2.  1686,  they  were  instructed  to 
make  their  inspections  once  in  fourteen  days  at  the  least, 

1  M.  C.  M.,  December  7,  1680.  2M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  144. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  139.  4/ttJ.,  vol.  i,  p.  187. 


179]  FIRE  179 

or  oftener  if  necessary.1  The  time  for  procuring  buckets 
had  expired  and  doubtless  the  frequent  inspection  was  in 
line  with  seeing  that  the  regulations  were  enforced. 

It  was  about  this  time  also  that  a  city  chimney  sweeper 
was  appointed.  William  Butler  was  the  first  incumbent. 
He  was  to  pass  through  the  "  Streetes  Lanes  and  Passages  " 
frequently,  "  with  such  noise  or  Cry  as  may  Discover  yow 
to  the  inhabitants  thereof."  He  was  authorized  to  charge 
one  shilling  for  sweeping  a  one  story  chimney;  eighteen 
pence  for  one  of  two  stories  or  more.2 

The  services  of  Dirck  Vanderburgh,  a  city  bricklayer, 
were  sought  again  and  again  in  the  next  twenty  years  in 
the  matter  of  fire  prevention.  On  November  16,  1689,  he 
and  Peter  Adolph  were  ordered  to  "  make  a  view  of  all  ye 
Chimnys  in  this  City  as  also  of  all  Bucketts  &  other  Ma- 
terialls  against  fyre."  They  were  to  call  upon  a  constable 
to  assist  them  in  each  ward  and  report  transgressors  to  the 
common  council.3  Two  years  later,  November  2$,  1691, 
Vanderburgh  was  named  as  one  of  a  committee  of  four  to 
"  goe  round  the  Towne  and  View  each  fire  place  and  Chim- 
ney that  they  be  Sufficient  and  Clean  Swept."  4  At  the 
same  time  the  ordinance  of  1686  relating  to  buckets  was  re- 
emphasized.  Responsibility  for  procuring  the  buckets  was 
now  definitely  fixed.  It  rested  with  the  tenant,  who,  was  to 
"  Marke  the  Bucketts  with  the  letters  of  his  landlords  name  " 
and  be  allowed  a  deduction  therefor  from  his  rent.  The 
mayor  might  use  his  discretion  in  penalizing  people  too  poor 
to  provide  buckets.5  A  regulation  of  this  sort  led  to  tempta- 
tion in  time  of  fire.  A  blaze  occurred  at  Smith's  Fly  in 
the  winter  of  1691-2,  after  which  a  complaint  came  to  the 
common  council  that  several  buckets  were  lost;  "  where- 

1  M.  C.  M.,  November  2,  1686.  -  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  184. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  2ii.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  255.     *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  255. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

upon  the  crier  was  ordered  to  give  notice  around  the  city 
that  any  person  who  had  taken  a  bucket  other  than  his  own 
must  return  it  to  the  mayor.1  Prosecution  would  await  any 
one  "in  whose  hands  soever  any  of  the  Said  Bucketts  Shall 
be  hereafter  found."  2 

At  the  common  council  meeting  of  December  3,  1695, 
Vanderburgh  was  named  as  sole  "  Overseer  and  Viewer  of 
ye  harths  and  Chimneys  of  each  Respective  Ward."  He 
was  authorized  to  call  the  constable  of  a  given  ward  to  his 
assistance  at  any  time,  and  especially  detailed  to  provide 
six  ladders,  "  two  whereof  to  have  hookes,"  at  the  expense 
of  the  city.3  Nine  pounds  five  shillings  was  Dirck's  bill  for 
these  ladders.  The  city  had  a  good  chance  to  see  whether 
it  got  its  money's  worth,  for  the  bill  was  not  paid  until  ten 
years  later.4  It  is  no  wonder  that  such  a  patient  waiter 
as  Dirck — he  was  now  Alderman  Vanderburgh — should  be 
again  detailed,  October  i,  1706,  to  "provide  for  the  pub- 
lick  use  of  this  City  Eight  Ladders  and  two  fire  hooks  and 
Poles  "  and  bring  in  his  account  for  the  same.  The  city 
had  now  attained  such  a  degree  of  affluence  that  the  court 
could  afford  to  pay  Rev.  William  Vesey  five  pounds  as  a 
"  Gratification  "  for  an  election  sermon; 5  so  the  larger  bill 
of  nineteen  pounds  and  two  shillings  for  this  fire  apparatus 
was  speedily  settled.6  The  life  of  a  ladder  appears  to  have 
averaged  about  a  dozen  years.  New  "  Ladders  and  Hooks 
for  the  publick  use  of  this  City  "  had  to  be  provided  once 
more  in  I7i6,7  and  yet  again  in  1730  "in  such  number  as  has 
been  usual."  8 

1  Forty-eight  hours  was  the  limit  of  time  for  returning  buckets  after 
a  fire  as  provided  by  an  ordinance  of  November  18,  1731 ;  cf.  M.  C.  C., 
vol.  iv,  p.  83. 

-M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  pp.  266-7.  "Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  391. 

4 Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  292.  ''Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  63,  122,  194,  210. 

e  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  316.  ~  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  132. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  3. 


i8i]  FIRE  181 

One  may  readily  believe  that  a  new  system  of  inspection 
against  fire  in  1697  emanated  from  the  same  fireman,  Dirck 
Vanderburgh.  It  was  an  arrangement  whereby  the  re- 
sponsibility for  clean  chimneys  and  safe  hearths  was  cen- 
tered in  the  alderman  and  assistant  of  each  ward.  Each 
pair  of  such  officials  was  to  appoint  a  pair  of  persons  to 
make  weekly  inspections.  One  half  the  fine  paid  by  offen- 
ders was  to  go  to  the  inspectors.  A  negligent  inspector  for- 
feited six  shillings  and  lost  his  job.1  It  is  to  be  noticed  that 
no  jurisdiction  over  the  fire  buckets  or  apparatus  was  included 
in  this  scheme.  Later  the  alderman  in  each  ward  was  made 
responsible  for  this  work  also.2 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  23-24.  *Ibi4.,  vol.  ii,  p.  245. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

CHARITIES  AND  CORRECTION 

PROFESSOR  HOWARD,  in  his  volume  on  local  constitu- 
tional history,  speaks  of  the  people  of  New  England  as 
"  exceedingly  jealous  of  the  intrusion  of  strangers  into 
the  community."1  He  did  not  need  to  take  pains  to 
pick  out  New  England,  as  a  glance  at  the  laws  and 
orders  of  New  York  city,  enacted  in  1684,  will  show.2 
We  know  what  our  federal  authorities  have  done  in 
recent  years  to  keep  out  of  the  country  the  undesirable 
immigrant  who  might  become  a  public  charge.  Even 
more  rigid  was  the  municipal  government  of  early  New 
York.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  constable  of  each  ward 
frequently  to  "  make  A  Strict  Search,  And  Enquirey  " 
after  all  strangers  and  report  such  to  the  mayor.  More- 
over, "  Every  keeper  of  Publique  houses  Taphouses  or 
Ordinaryes  "  who  lodged  a  stranger  over  two  days  was 
obliged  to  report  to  the  constable  of  the  ward  "the 
Name  Surname  Dwelling  place,  Proffession  And  Trade 
of  Life  And  Place  of  Service  of  all  Such  Person  Or  Per- 
sons, and  for  what  Cause  he  or  they  Came  to  Reside 
there." 

If  the  master  of  a  vessel  brought  a  stranger  to  the 
city,  he  must  give  his  name  to  the  mayor  within  twenty- 
four  hours  under  a  penalty  of  forty  shillings.1'  Even  a 

1  Howard,  G.  E.,  Local  Constitutional  History  of  the  U.  S.,  p.  87. 
M/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  135.  "Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  135. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  220. 

182  [182 


183]  CHARITY  AND  CORRECTION 

private  citizen  was  liable  to  the  same  fine  if  he  enter- 
tained a  visitor  longer  than  seven  days  without  inform- 
ing the  mayor.1  After  one  month  the  newcomer  must 
"  watch  and  ward  and  pay  all  Taxes  and  Assessm*8  and 
doe  all  Other  Such  things  As  the  Inhabitants  from  tyme 
to  tyme  Shall  be  Obliedged  to  Pay  and  Performe."  2 

The  young  city  had  its  poor,  nevertheless,  and  we  are 
interested  to  see  how  they  were  cared  for.  We  glean 
just  enough  from  the  records  of  the  Dutch  city  to  know 
that  it  was  the  church  and  not  the  municipal  government 
that  carried  the  burden.  The  church  deacons  expected 
voluntary  contributions  to  be  placed  in  the  several 
"poor-boxes."  The  contents  were  gathered  from  time 
to  time  and  used  for  the  care  of  the  needy.3  Very  few 
appeals  came,  therefore,  directly  to  the  municipal  au- 
thorities. There  was  a  case  in  1670  of  one  John  Fos- 
sacre  (otherwise  spelled  Fossiker  and  Folshave)  desiring 
some  help  during  his  sickness.  The  burgomasters  and 
schepens  "  do  recommend  to  the  deakons  of  this  Citty  to 
allow  the  Petitioner  some  support,  and  to  enquire  Con- 
cerning the  deseaze  and  Condition  of  the  Petitioner,  and 
the  place  of  his  Late  residence,  and  to  make  a  returne 
thereof  at  the  next  Court  day." 4  No  "  returne  "  appears 
in  the  records  of  the  next  court  day,  but  when  the  same 
man  petitioned  again  the  following  year, 5  followed  by 
similar  action  on  the  part  of  the  court,  the  deacons  of 
the  Reformed  Church  reported  that  the  petitioner  be- 
longed to  the  Lutheran  Church  whose  deacons  ought  to 
maintain  him.6  The  court  summoned  the  Lutheran  dea- 
cons to  appear  at  the  next  court.  Evidently  they  made 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  220.  '  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  154. 

•"•  Rcc.  -V.  Am.,  vol.  iii,  p.  143;  vol.  vii,  p.  242. 
4  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  266.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  340. 

6  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  348. 


:84        NEW,  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

it  clear  to  the  court  that  Fossacre  was  unworthy,  for  it 
was  ordered  that  "  they  shal  give  no  more  allowance  to 
Jno  fossiker,  til  further  order."  At  the  same  time  the 
squabble  between  the  respective  deacons  was  settled  by 
the  court.  "  Each  Church  should  for  the  future  Main- 
taine  their  owne  Poore."  Furthermore,  in  both  churches, 
Lutheran  as  well  as  Reformed,  the  deacons  at  a  public 
meeting  should  render  an  account  of  how  they  have  dis- 
posed of  the  money  they  have  collected  for  the  poor.1 

During  the  first  decade  of  the  English  city  no  change 
from  the  Dutch  practice  appears.  In  1685  Governor  Don- 
gan  recommended  "  to  the  Consideration  of  the  Common 
Councell  the  maintainance  of  the  poore." 2  It  is  apparent 
that  the  board  agreed  with  him  that  a  change  was  nec- 
essary, for  it  was  decided  that  the  aldermen  of  all  wards 
"  doe  inspect  what  persons  within  their  Severall  wards 
are  poore  and  Wanting  almes  for  their  Susteanance  and 
make  Certificate  thereof  to  the  Mayor  that  Care  may  be 
forthwith  taken  for  their  Reliefe  out  of  the  publique 
Theasury  of  this  Citty  and  County."3  If  any  particular 
ward  failed  to  make  a  report,  it  must  maintain  its  own 
poor.  It  was  expected  that  the  aldermen  would  have 
the  assistance  of  the  constables  in  their  several  wards  in 
their  inspection. 

A  couple  of  years  later  the  alderman  and  assistant  of 
each  ward  were  authorized  to  provide  for  their  own  poor 
directly,  without  reporting  to  the  mayor.  They  were 
to  draw  on  the  city  treasury  for  what  they  expended.4 
In  the  year  1688  something  over  twenty  pounds  was  thus 
expended.5  At  a  meeting  of  the  common  council,  on 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  352-3.  '2 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  167. 

s  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  172.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  194. 

6  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  205-6. 


CHARITY  AND  CORRECTION  ^5 

January  4,  1690,  when  more  funds  were  for  the  needed 
poor  than  the  city  had  at  hand,  each  constable  was  or- 
dered to  take  up  a  collection  from  all  the  inhabitants  of 
his  ward  for  the  maintenance  of  the  poor  and  to  render 
an  account  of  the  same  to  the  mayor.1 

In  the  year  1691  we  have  the  first  record  of  the  com- 
mon council  issuing  orders  for  the  support  of  given  in- 
dividuals. One  Captain  Collier  was  to  have  three  shill- 
ings six  pence  per  week  allowed  for  his  maintenance  and 
paid  to  his  landlord.2  This  amount  was  the  one  gen- 
erally allowed  ;  sometimes  two  shillings  was  considered 
enough ;  rarely  four  was  allowed.  Women  regularly 
were  maintained  at  less  expense  than  men.  "  Two 
Woemen  and  two  Children  without  the  gate  in  the  House 
of  John  de  La  Vail  the  one  called  Topknott  Betty  the 
other  one  Stillwells  wife  with  the  Children  "  were  allowed 
four  shillings  a  week  for  one  month's  time.3  The  allow- 
ance was  not  always  in  the  form  of  money.  The  treas- 
urer was  to  let  one  Scarrbanck  "  have  a  new  Suite  and 
assist  him  in  whats  wanting."4  One  John  Roux  was 
shut  up  in  the  city  jail  after  the  first  intercolonial  (King 
William's)  war  commenced  and  threatened  to  become  an 
expensive  city  charge  because  his  wife  and  children  were 
without  support.  The  prisoner's  petition  in  their  behalf 
to  the  governor  and  council  was  referred  to  the  mayor 
and  aldermen,  who  were  directed  "to  Supply  the  Nesses- 
sitys  of  ye  Prisoners  wife  and  Children  or  to  Give  an 
Account  next  Thursday  unto  the  Council  of  their  Reasons 
to  the  Contrary."  The  children  were  ordered  to  be 
"  put  out  "  by  the  overseers  of  the  poor  "  in  Some  Good 
Reputable  Families  "  during  the  father's  period  of  im- 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  212.  'Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  226. 

s Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  233.  'Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  234. 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

prisonment.1  The  effects  of  James  Nichols,  familiarly 
known  as  "  Petty  Boys  the  distracted  man,"  were  or- 
dered to  be  cared  for  to  the  unfortunate  man's  best  ad- 
vantage during  one  of  his  periods  of  "distraction."2 

When  Abraham  de  Peyster  was  mayor  in  1691,  it  was 
decided  to  try  a  new  arrangement.  Two  councilmen, 
Johannes  Kipp  and  Teunis  de  Kay,  were  made  overseers 
of  the  poor  for  three  months,  "  Impowred  to  releave 
Such  persons  as  they  Shall  deeme  Objects  of  Charity  and 
to  draw  bills  upon  the  Treasurer  for  Such  moneys  as 
they  Shall  disburse  for  Such  Ends  in  the  managem'  of 
w'h  they  Shall  act  joyntly."3  The  same  men  were  con- 
tinued in  office  for  three  months  after  Feburary  18,  1692,4 
and  this  custom  was  followed  with  some  degree  of  regu- 
larity for  over  three  years.  In  1695  these  officials  were 
raised  in  importance  by  an  act  of  the  provincial  assembly 
enabling  the  common  council  "  to  make  Choice  and 
Elect  by  Majority  of  Votes  five  Freemen  of  the  Said 
Citty  who  with  the  Said  Common  Council  are  to  Raise  all 
Taxes  for  Defraying  of  ye  Publick  Charges  of  ye  Said 
Citty  now  Especially  for  Maintaining  of  the  poor  Repair- 
ing the  High  ways  and  all  Publick  Buildings."5  This 
was  an  enabling  rather  than  a  compelling  act,  but  the  com- 
mon council  took  advantage  of  the  same  for  a  few  years. 
The  new  officials  appear  first  in  the  records  of  October 
20,  1695, 6  and  are  called  "  Overseers  of  ye  poor  &c."  At 
other  times  they  were  variously  "The  Overseers  &c,"7 
"the  Overseers  of  ye  poor  &  Public  works  &c."8 
"  Overseers  of  the  poor  and  Publick  Works  and  build- 
ings,9  or  simply  "Overseers  of  ye  Poor."10 

1  M.  C.  C.,   vol.  i,  p.  348.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  287,  307. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  258.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  265. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  387,  396-7.  6Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  387. 

7  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  389.  8  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  387. 

'  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  421.  10  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  394. 


CHARITY  A\'D  CORRECTION 

The  common  council  chose  one  overseer  from  each 
ward.1  At  first  these  new  officials  had  more  to  do  than 
the  aldermen  and  assistants.2  Along  the  line  of  charity 
their  first  instructions  were  to  "  Visitt  the  several  Wards 
of  this  Citty  and  Examine  what  poor  there  is  that  are 
fitt  Objects  of  their  Charity  &  make  an  Estimate  what 
will  be  Nessessary  to  be  Raised  for  their  Reliefe  and  make 
Reporte  thereof  to  the  Clerkes  office  this  day  forth- 
night."  3  The  sum  of  £ioofor  one  year  was  their  estimate. 
A  tax  was  ordered  for  raising  the  same,4  and  the  over- 
seers were  authorized  to  borrow  £20  for  present  use.5 

We  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  office  was  not 
eagerly  sought.  The  poor  tax  came  in  slowly  and  the 
overseers  lacked  funds  and  became  tired  of  advancing 
from  their  own  pockets.  John  Spratt  paid  a  fine  rather 
than  serve  as  overseer  in  i6g6.6  At  one  time  Alderman 
Jacobus  Van  Cortlandt  loaned  tea  pounds  when  the 
treasury  was  empty.7  The  general  situation  was  sensed 
by  William  Baker,  who  at  his  death  left  forty  pounds  to 
the  city  to  be  given  to  the  poor.8  Truly  the  modern 
humanitarian  spirit  in  our  metropolis  found  its  earliest 
substantial  manifestation  in  William  Baker  in  1697. 

A  committee  of  inquiry  reported,  June  9,  1697,  that 
the  city  owed  the  overseers  £106  and  that  £50  more 
would  be  needed  before  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year  in 
October.9  Some  five  years  later,  in  a  petition  to  the 
provincial  assembly,  the  municipal  government  asked 
"That  A  Law  be  Enacted  to  Enable  the  Citty  of  New 

1 M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i.  p.  421. 

2  Sec  M.  C.  C.  of  October  jo  and  November  19.  1695,  vol.  i,  pp.  387-391. 
M/.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  387.  4 //>/</..  vol.  i,  p.  389. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  390.  6  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  429. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  429.  "//;;'(/.,  vol.  ii,  p.  10. 

9  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  10. 


!88        X£W  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      [188 

Yorke  to  Raise  Money  for  the  Reliefe  of  the  poor  soe 
often  as  their  shall  be  Occasion.1 

It  may  be  that  Mayor  Peartree's  government  thought 
to  reduce  the  number  of  paupers  by  such  a  scheme  as 
the  following :  "  Order'd  the  Church  Wardens  of  this 
City  put  A  Badge  upon  the  Cloths  of  such  poor  as  are 
Clothed  by  this  City  with  this  Mark  N:  Y  in  blew  or 
Red  Cloath  att  their  discretion."2  The  foregoing  is  the 
first  mention  of  the  church  wardens  in  connection  with 
the  poor,  and  it  is  significant  because  the  records  had 
made  no  mention  of  overseers  of  the  poor  for  some 
ten  years  previously.  The  office  apparently  h2d  been 
allowed  to  lapse  and  the  care  of  the  poor  had  been  trans- 
ferred to  parish  officers.3 

Commencing  with  1713,  the  municipal  authorities  con- 
sidered petitions  for  charity  when  the  officials  were  sit- 
ting as  a  court  rather  than  as  the  common  council,  and 
one  searches  the  court  minutes  rather  than  the  council 
minutes  for  material.  Now  for  the  first  time  we  have  a 
census  of  the  city's  poor,  to  whom  the  church  wardens 
are  ordered  to  allow  "such  Reasonable  Maintainance  " 
as  they  shall  think  of  absolute  necessity  for  their  relief. 

This  first  pauper  list  is  not  without  interest  and  is 
appended :4 

Daniel  Butts  Catherine  Reade 

Effie  a  blind  women  Anne  Shuttleworth 

Sarah  an  old  Maid  Mrs.  Hope 

Mrs.  Cooley  a  soldier's  wife  Mrs.  Taylor 

Cornelius  Van  Vlierden  Mrs.  Carlse 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  206.  3 Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  330. 

3  For  these  parish  officers  in  England,  cf.  Stow,  John,  A  Survey  of 
London,  Westminster,  Southwark  and  Parts  Adjacent,  vol.  ii,  pp.  720,  767. 

4  M.  C.  M.,  March  24,  1713. 


189]  CHARITY  AND  CORRECTION 

Mary  Cooley  Margarett  Key 

Elizabeth  Dragoon  Mary  Brown 

Effie  Bluett  a  blind  women  l 
Philip  Battin  &  Pasco  Battin 
(two  fatherless  &  motherless  children) 

Later  on,  March  20,  1716,  the  church  wardens  were 
ordered  to  "  Strike  Mary  Brown  out  of  the  list  of  the 
poor  of  this  City  She  being  a  lewd  woman  as  the  Court 
is  informed.2  "  Speedy  relief "  for  the  poor  was  reported 
as  an  "Absolute  Necessity"  with  the  approach  of  winter 
in  1713,  and  the  mayor  was  directed  to  procure  £100, 
"  Either  by  Bond  of  this  Corporation  or  Mortgage  of 
the  ferry,"  and  hand  it  over  to  the  church  wardens.3 
A  little  over  a  year  later,  January  4,  1715,  the  poor  were 
again  "  in  great  want"  and  funds  were  gone.  The  com- 
mon council  suggested  that  the  church  wardens  advance 
the  fifteen  pounds  declared  to  be  immediately  necessary, 
the  city  to  repay  later  with  interest.4 

It  was  about  this  time  that  the  question  of  a  poor 
house  was  first  considered.  Three  aldermen  and  three 
assistants  were  named  as  a  committee,  March  24,  1714, 
"  to  Consult  with  the  Mayor  about  the  building  of  A 
poor  house  and  house  of  Correction  in  this  City.5  The 
construction  of  such  a  building  was  delayed,  however, 
until  I735,6  but  we  know  that  a  temporary  poor  house 
was  provided  immediately,  because  Andrew  Roulson, 
blacksmith,  "  being  very  sick  and  weak  and  an  Object  of 
Charity,"  was  ordered  to  be  maintained  "  in  the  poor 
house,"  September  28,  I7I4-7  Samuel  Carratt,  also 

1  Probably  the  same  "  Effie  "  mentioned  above. 

5  .If.  C.  M.,  March  20,  1716.  zlf.  C.  C.,  vol.  Hi,  pp.  52-3. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  83.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  59-60. 

fi  I  bid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  251.  M/.  C".  M.,  September  28,  1/14. 


ICJ0  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

"  very  sick  and  weak/'  was  ordered  into  the  poor  house 
about  the  same  time,  to  be  maintained  "  until  he  be  able 
to  work  for  his  living,"  and  the  church  wardens  were 
ordered  to  pay  the  "woman  of  the  poor  house  for  his 
support.1 

Elizabeth  Burger  was  the  keeper  of  the  almshouse  in 
1715,  and  the  church  wardens  were  ordered  to  pay  her 
the  munificent  sum  of  six  pounds,  "  for  Supplying  her 
with  necessaries  for  the  use  of  the  poor  and  for  her  Care 
and  trouble  about  them  for  one  year."2  Two  or  three 
years  later  the  poor  are  spoken  of  as  being  maintained 
at  the  house  of  Garratt  and  Elizabeth  Deboogh.3  It 
is  evident  that  the  number  maintained  within  the  poor 
house  was  much  smaller  than  that  cared  for  outside. 
The  mayor's  court  looked  to  the  church  wardens  to  in- 
vestigate and  bring  to  their  attention  the  needy  cases ; 
each  case  was  considered  by  itself  and  orders  were  given 
to  the  wardens  for  the  disposition  of  the  same. 

The  aged  and  crippled  were  naturally  the  most  numer- 
ous dependents ;  frequently  there  were  orphans,  and 
widows  left  with  young  children.  In  case  of  the  children 
the  authorities  always  sought  to  "  put  them  out  "  or  ap- 
prentice them,  and  thus  relieve  the  city  of  the  burden.4 
Among  the  aged  dependents  the  name  of  Jarvis  Marshall, 
once  the  city's  haven  master,5  appears  several  times.6 
Jemima  Haley  was  not  old,  but  she  sought  temporary 
assistance  until  she  was  cured  of  a  dog  bite.7  John 
Downing  got  thirty  shillings  while  his  collar  bone  was 

1  M.  C.  M.,  August  31,  1714.  'Ibid.,    July  5,  1/15. 

s  Ibid.,  August  13,  1717,  August  19,  1718. 

4 Ibid.,  September  i,  1719,  October  27,  1719. 

5  Ch.  iv,  p.  112,  et  seq. 

'  M.  C.  M.,  September  20,  1720,  January  10,  1721. 

7  Ibid.,  August  19,  1718. 


CHARITY  AND  CORRECTION  !9! 

mending.1  Danell  Usen  was  in  the  poor  house  after 
having  been  taken  from  a  wreck  at  sea,*  while  Capt. 
William  Trevillian  was  given  thirty  shillings  toward  his 
support,  "  he  being  lately  taken  by  a  Spanish  Privateer 
near  the  Coast  of  Virginia,"  where  he  lost  the  ship  of 
which  he  was  sole  owner  and  "all  the  rest  of  his  Sub- 
stance.3 One  Susan,  commonly  called  "  Mad  Sew," 
was  supplied  with  "  a  good  pair  of  Shoes  &  Stockings  & 
Other  Necessary  Warm  Clothing  She  being  very  old 
Poor  &  Non  Compos  Mentis."4  A  flax  wheel  and 
a  pair  of  wool  cards  were  provided  for  the  wife  of  Thomas 
Clifton,  who  had  lost  his  eyesight.5  Interesting  also  is 
the  case  of  Sarah  Meals,  who  received  forty  shillings  ''  to 
Remove  herself"  out  of  town.6  There  were  many,  many 
cases  where  the  city  was  called  upon  to  pay  the  expenses 
of  burial. 

On  several  occasions  a  physician  was  paid  for  atten- 
dance upon  the  city's  poor.  Dr.  Johannes  Kerfbyl  was 
paid  five  pounds  in  1689,  for  looking  after  them  for  one 
year,7  and  the  same  amount  was  allowed  him  at  a  later 
time.8  Jacob  Provoost  is  spoken  of  as  "  Doctor  to  the 
poor  of  this  City"  in  1713,  the  church  wardens  being 
ordered  to  pay  him  eight  pounds  in  full  of  his  salary.  9 

Hospitals  are  a  comparatively  modern  creation  in  the 
history  of  the  city.  To  be  sure,  as  far  back  as  1677,  a 
"  Lunatick  "  gave  the  authorities  some  concern  and  a 
house  was  ordered  built  for  him  within  the  fort.10  Again, 
in  1699,  the  common  council  ordered  the  mayor  "to 
Agree  with  Some  person  for  the  Keeping  of  An  Hospi- 

1  M.  C.  M.,    February  9,  1720.  '  Ibid.,  August  23,  1715. 

8  Ibid.,    January  26,  1720.  *  Ibid.,  October  10,  1724. 

5  Ibid.,  February  11,  1718.  *Ibid.,  Mayo.  1721. 

'  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i.  p.  206.  B  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  68. 

°.U.  C.  .\f.,  June  9,  1713.  I0  Hid.,  November  20,  1677. 


I92        NE-W  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

tal," '  but  nothing  appears  to  have  been  done.  When 
there  came  to  be  a  poor  house,  it  served  at  the  same 
time  as  a  hospital  until  after  the  Revolution. 

A  gaol  or  prison  was  an  early  necessity.  When  excav- 
ating for  the  new  subway,  in  the  spring  of  1914,  work- 
men came  upon  a  brick  wall  containing  windows  with 
an  iron  grating.  The  Enginering  Record  of  April  II, 
1914,  believed  this  to  be  the  wall  of  an  old  Dutch  prison. 
The  location,  under  Church  Street  between  Dey  and 
Cortlandt,  made  this  impossible  since  the  Dutch  city 
was  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  wall.  It  may  have 
been  one  of  the  warehouses  that  lined  the  strand  in  the 
early  days  of  the  English  city;  it  certainly  was  not  a 
Dutch  prison.  The  Stadt  Huys  is  mentioned  again 
and  again  as  the  abode  of  New  Amsterdam's  sinful 
souls.  The  English  city  made  use  of  the  same  prison 
quarters  until  the  new  city  hall  was  completed,  in  1700, 
and  this  latter  remained  the  only  city  prison  until  1760. 
Six  years  before  the  first  English  occupation  the  New 
Amsterdam  government  issued  detailed  instructions  for 
the  keeper  of  the  jail  and  public  prison.2  Among  other 
things,  he  was  "  bound  to  note  down  when  the  prisoners 
are  brought  into  the  public  gaol  and  the  name  and  sur- 
name and  also  when  they  are  discharged,  and  what 
cloaths,  money,  goods  they  brought  with  them  into  the 
prison."  He  must  "  thoroughly  visit  the  prisoners  and 
the  cells  at  least  two  or  three  times  a  week  either  by 
night  or  by  day."  He  must  look  closely  to  see  that  the 
prisoners  "have  not  knives,  irons,  rope  or  other  instru- 
ments to  break  out  or  to  injure  themselves."  If  through 
his  neglect  any  escaped,  he  might  be  sued  therefor.  Ex- 
cept by  consent  of  the  schout,  burgomasters,  and 

1M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  85.  ~  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  294-6 


193]  CHARITY  AND  CORRECTION 

schepens,  he  might  not  relieve  prisoners  from  their  fet- 
ters nor  increase  them  unless  escape  had  been  attempted. 
Any  thus  "secured"  must  be  immediately  reported. 
Weekly  rations  of  meat  and  drink  were  prescribed  for  each 
prisoner — three  pounds  of  beef,  one  and  one  half-pounds 
of  pork,  a  can  of  beer  daily  (this  amount  doubled  in  sum- 
mer), and  the  like.  These  the  jailer  must  furnish  as 
prescribed,  unless  any  were  "placed  on  bread  and  water," 
in  which  case  he  must  not  let  them  have  anything  else 
nor  even  sell  them  anything.  He  "  shall  inspect  and  clean 
the  prison  every  week,  so  that  no  stench  may  arise." 
No  one  might  "  come  to  speak  to  the  prisoners,  except 
though  the  grating,  without  the  consent  of  the  schout  and 
president."  The  jailer  should  separate  the  prisoners  as 
much  as  possible  from  one  another  and  "arrange  them 
according  to  their  offences  and  persons,  especially  the 
women  from  the  men."  No  fire  or  light  was  permissible 
in  the  cells,  but  a  prisoner  sitting  in  the  prison  chamber 
might  have  a  candle  every  two  days,  which  he  could  burn 
until  eight  o'clock  on  a  winter's  evening,  and  nine  in  the 
summer. 

During  the  year  1657,  the  year  before  the  aforesaid 
instructions  were  drafted,  we  are  informed  that  Anthony 
Baeck  was  keeper  of  the  jail  at  one  hundred  and  fifty 
florins  ($60)  salary.1  With  these  instructions,  however, 
a  system  of  allowances  to  the  jailer  came  into  vogue,  and 
the  incumbent  whose  income  was  based  on  the  number 
of  prisoners  must  have  been  in  a  position  to  welcome  a 
"  wave  of  crime."  He  received  an  allowance  of  twenty 
stivers  (40  cents)  per  day  (subject  to  change  at  the  order 
of  the  judge)  for  feeding  a  prisoner,  which  amount  was 
reduced  one-half  if  the  fare  was  bread  and  water.  Even 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  ii,  p.  289. 


I94 


NEW  YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 


if  there  were  no  prisoners  in  confinement  he  could  not 
sleep  outside  the  prison  except  by  consent  of  the  presi- 
dent.1 We  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  same 
regulations  prevailed  after  the  city  came  into  the  posses- 
sion of  the  English.  Indeed,  it  is  quite  impossible  to 
detect  any  marked  difference  in  the  correction  of  wrong- 
doers after  the  English  assumed  control  of  the  munici- 
pality. 

Imprisonment  alone  has  been  considered  thus  far  as  a 
form  of  correction.  A  second  form  of  penalty  was,  of 
course,  the  fine,  "  Imprisonment  and  fine  "  were  linked 
quite  as  closely  in  the  colonial  as  in  the  modern  city.  In 
cases  where  a  fine  was  imposed  a  very  common  arrange- 
ment was  to  grant  one  third  of  the  same  to  the  informer, 
one  third  to  the  schout,  and  one  third  to  the  city  ;  2  as  a 
consequence  we  find  the  schout  recommending  right 
along  a  fine  of  goodly  proportions,  which  the  court  in- 
variably diminished.  For  example,  Schout  Nicasius  de 
Silla  wanted  two  citizens  fined  "£4  Flemish  "  each  for 
racing  with  their  horses  on  Sunday  after  the  sermon. 
The  court  placed  the  fine  at  three  guilders  each  ($i.2o).3 

In  1667,  under  the  English  regime,  Allard  Anthony, 
the  sheriff,  thought  Thomas  Tailer  ought  to  pay  a  fine  of 
100  guilders  ($40)  for  striking  Laurens  Silla  till  th.9 
blood  came  ;  the  court  fixed  the  penalty  at  ten  groats 
(about  eighty  cents).4  The  'casual  reader,  indeed  the 
close  reader  in  matters  colonial,  almost  invariably  pictures 
in  his  mind  miscreants  standing  at  the  pillory,  sitting  in 
the  stocks,  lashed  to  the  stake,  or  dangling  from  the 
gallows.  If  the  culprit  be  a  brawling  woman,  she  is 
thought  of  as  occupying  the  ducking  chair  and  about  to 

1  Rec.  N.  Am.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  294-6.  "Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  19. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  131-2.  4  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  87. 


I95] 


CHARITY  AND  CORRECTION 


make  close  acquaintance  with  the  cool  waters  beneath. 
A  study  of  the  records,  however,  shows  that  such  forms 
of  correction  in  New  York  were  very  infrequent.  One 
Mesaack  Martens,  in  1661  ,  for  stealing  some  cabbages,  was 
sentenced  "  to  stand  in  the  pillory  with  cabbages  on  his 
head."  '  Following  this  the  pillory  seems  to  have  had  no 
further  use.  Some  thirty  years  later  the  disorder  accom- 
panying Leisler's  rebellion  may  have  induced  the  common 
council  to  order  "  that  the  Sherriffe  Imediately  cause 
a  Ducking  Stoole  to  be  built  upon  the  Wharf  e  before  the 
Citty  hall  and  goe  to  the  Treasurer  for  his  pay."2  This 
order  was  not  carried  out,  and  the  reason  why  is  not 
difficult  to  guess.  The  sheriff  would  much  prefer  that  a 
fine  be  imposed,  one  third  of  which  was  regularly  paid  to 
him.  Several  months  later,  February  4,  1692,  another 
order  provided  for  the  immediate  construction  of  a  pil- 
lory, cage,  and  ducking  stool,  and  now  William  Merritt 
and  Capt.  Thomas  Clarke  were  "joyned  in  a  Comittee 
with  the  Sherriffe  for  finishing  the  Same."3  One  would 
expect  the  court  would  find  suitable  candidates  for  these 
newly  constructed  penal  instruments,  but  the  only  evi- 
dence we  have  that  they  were  actually  completed  is  a 
minute  to  the  effect  that  they  needed  repair  in  i695.4 

We  find  no  mention  whatever  of  the  stocks  in  Dutch 
times.  In  1699,  however,  there  were  such  in  existence 
in  front  of  the  old  city  hall,  from  which  place  they  were 
then  ordered  to  be  removed,  together  with  the  cage  and 
pillory.  It  was  at  this  same  meeting  that  the  old  city 
hall  was  ordered  to  be  sold  to  the  highest  bidder.5  For 
more  than  two  years  the  city  must  have  existed  without 


1  Rcc.  -Y.  Am.,   vol.  iii,  p.  410.  2  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  i,  p.  253. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  267.  4 /&/</.,  vol.  i.  p.  .^4. 

''Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  81. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

these  instruments  of  punishment,  the  sight  of  which 
rather  than  their  actual  use  was  supposed  to  lessen 
crime.  On  November  i,  1703,  "  a  Cage,  Whipping  post, 
pillory  and  Stocks  "  were  ordered  to  be  erected  in  front 
of  the  city  hall.1  They  were  moved  to  a  slightly  differ- 
ent position  in  Broad  Street  seven  years  later,2  and  in 
1720  they  were  again  replaced  by  new  ones.3 

Stow  describing  the  Cornhill  pillory4  in  his  Survey  of 
London  says,  "On  the  top  of  which  Cage5  was  placed  a 
Pillorie  for  the  punishment  of  Bakers,  offending  in  the 
assize  of  bread ;  for  Millers  stealing  of  Corne  at  the  Mill ; 
for  Bawds,  Scolds,  and  other  offenders."  A  careful 
search  through  the  court  records  of  the  burgomasters 
and  schepens  as  well  as  those  of  the  mayor's  court 
reveals  offenders  of  this  sort  in  plenty,  but  only  a  single 
case — the  one  just  cited6 — where  a  pillory  was  used. 
Not  a  solitary  case  appears  where  the  offender  was  caged 
or  condemned  to  the  stocks  or  ducking  stool.  The 
whipping  post,  however,  was  in  actual  use  several  times, 
scourging  being  frequently  accompanied  by  branding  and 
banishment  from  the  city.  In  1660  Hendrick  Jansen, 
Claarbout  van  ter  Goos,  who  is  spoken  of  as  a  felon,  but 
whose  exact  crime  is  not  mentioned,  was  condemned  to 
be  whipped,  branded,  and  banished  with  his  wife  and 
children  to  Virginia,  the  provincial  authorities  having 
given  the  burgomasters  and  schepens  power  to  banish 
from  New  Netherland  as  well  as  from  the  city.7 

The  record  of  this  case  has  an  additional  interest  for 

1  M.  C.  C.,  vol.  ii,  p.  244.  2  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  425. 

z  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  227. 

4  Stow,  John  A.,  Survey  of  London,  p.  208. 

5  Described  as  "  a  strong  prison  made  of  Timber  .  .  .  with  a  paire  of 
Stocks  therein,"  ibid.,  p.  208. 

6  Cf.  supra,  p.  195. 

7 Rcc.  N.  Am.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  no,  in,  114. 


197]  CHARITY  AND  CORRECTION 

us,  as  it  shows  a  method  sometimes  used  by  the  court 
for  deciding  what  kind  of  a  sentence  it  was  best  to 
impose.  Each  one  of  the  seven  members  of  the  court 
was  called  upon  to  express  his  decision,  after  which  sen- 
tence was  declared.  In  this  case  three  schepens  had 
voted  the  prisoner  worthy  of  death,  while  one  schepen 
had  joined  the  two  burgomasters  in  recommending  that  he 
be  "  whipped  and  branded  and  banished,"  when  the  sev- 
enth man,  Schepen  Cornelius  Steenwyck,  was  called  upon 
for  his  opinion.  He  broke  the  tie  by  voting  that  "he 
be  whipped  and  branded  under  the  gallows,  the  halter 
being  around  his  neck,  and  banished  for  ever  and  sent 
hence  with  his  wife  and  children  on  pain  of  the  gallows ; 
thanking  the  Magistracy  on  his  bended  knees  for  their 
merciful  and  well  deserved  justice."1 

In  1662  Reyer  Cornelissen,  the  miller,  confessing,  after 
being  tortured,  to  stealing  grain,  was  tied  to  the  stake, 
scourged,  and  banished  from  the  city  for  ten  years. 2 
Grietje  Jans,  for  her  "  scandalous,  irregular,  whorish  and 
evil  life  and  behaviour,"  must  depart  the  city  within  four- 
teen days  or  three  weeks  time  on  pain  of  bodily  correc- 
tion.3 Neeltje  Pieters,  convicted  of  stealing  stockings, 
was  banished  for  eight  years.4  With  a  sense  of  fitness 
that  will  appeal  to  many,  a  ten-year-old  girl,  Lysbet 
Anthony,  who  confessed  to  having  stolen  seawant,  was 
ordered  to  be  whipped  with  rods  by  her  mother  in  the 
presence  of  the  magistrates.5  All  the  foregoing  penalties 
were  imposed  by  the  Dutch  court,  and  in  matters  of  this 
kind  there  is  a  most  striking  similarity  between  the  Dutch 
and  English  court  records. 


YORK  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

There  was  no  departure  under  English  rule  from  the 
previous  practices,  either  in  determining  guilt  or  in  assign- 
ing the  penalty.  For  instance,  in  1679,  John  Williams,  of 
Fordham,  who  did  "wickedly  and  feloniously  steale  and 
take  away  a  certain  horse "  from  the  farm  of  Francis 
Brown,  of  Stamford,  and  was  found  guilty  by  the  jury, 
was  sentenced  to  be  "  whipped  by  the  Comon  Whiper 
on  the  Naked  back  Thirty  Nine  Lashes,"  also  to  be 
"  burnt  on  the  shoulder"  and  pay  all  the  charges  within 
ten  days,  or  be  transported  at  the  city's  discretion.1  In 
the  same  year  a  "  Negro  called  Danielle,"  for  "  drawing 
his  knife  ag'  a  Burger  of  this  Citty  &  rideing  in  a  Cart," 
was  condemned  to  receive  "  forty  Lashes  at  ye  Whipping 
post."  2  John  Baker,  another  negro,  stole  a  kettle  from 
Carston  Leerson's  house  and  "  Buoy  roaps  and  Shrowds" 
from  Martin  Creger's  sloop.  He  got  thirty  lashes.3 
Margaret  Peters,  a  mulatto,  was  banished  from  the  city 
for  theft.  She  did  not  remain  banished,  but  returned 
shortly  and  did  some  more  stealing.  This  time  she  was 
sentenced  to  be  "  Whipt  at  ye  Comon  whipen  post  20 
Lashes  on  ye  bare  back"  and  "be  burnt  in  ye  shoulder." 
Her  banishment  also  was  to  continue.4 

Mary,  the  wife  of  John  Henries,  received  stolen  prop- 
erty and  sold  it.  She  had  to  make  good  the  loss  and 
pay  a  fine  of  six  pounds  to  the  city ;  if  at  any  time  there- 
after she  should  be  found  "in  the  like  Error,"  she  was 
to  be  "whipped  out  of  the  towne."5 

Thirty  lashes  upon  the  bare  back  "and  banishment 
for  one  whole  yeare  and  a  day"  was  the  sentence  im- 
posed on  Will  Anthony's  wife,  Margaret,  for  theft  and 
"  Carnall  Coppulacon  with  others  than  her  husband."6 

1 \I.  C.  M.,  May  28,  1679.  *  Ibid.,  April  16,  1679. 

3  Ibid.,  February  15,  1679.  *  Ibid.,  September  21  and  23,  1680. 

5  Ibid.,  January  13,  1680.  6  Ibid.,  February  14,  1680. 


199]  CHARITY  AND  CORRECTION 

Andrew  Ball,  after  being  in  prison  some  time  for  "  tak- 
ing a  false  Oath  before  the  Governor,"  begged  the  mercy 
of  the  court.  As  a  warning  to  the  public  of  the  seriousness 
of  such  an  offense,  the  prisoner  was  sentenced  to  "  bee 
on  Munday  next  brought  to  the  whipping  post  before 
the  Citty  hall  and  there  continue  to  stand  with  a  Paper 
pinned  on  his  breast  mentioning  his  crime  for  ye  Space 
of  one  whole  hower."  ' 

Michael  Hastings,  two  years  later,  got  quite  as  much 
publicity  for  a  far  less  serious  offense,  perhaps  because 
he  was  a  "  forraigner "  from  New  Jersey.  The  sheriff 
had  taken  him  into  custody  for  stealing  sheets  from  the 
beds  in  James  Matthew's  house  within  the  city,  two  of 
which  sheets  were  "found  upon  him."  It  is  not  at  all 
improbable  that  some  member  of  the  court  remembered 
seeing  Martens  with  those  stolen  cabbages  on  his  head 
twenty-six  years  before.  At  any  rate,  Hastings  was 
sentenced  to  "  be  carryed  from  prison  to  the  Whipping 
post  and  there  Stand  halfe  an  houre  with  the  Sheets  about 
his  Neck  and  a  Rodd  under  each  Arme  and  to  depart  this 
Citty  within  24  houres  or  else  to  be  wrhipped."2 

1  M.  C.  M.,  July  31,  1675.     Compare  with  the  punishment  of  a  priest  in 
London,  described  by  Stow,  Sun'cy  of  London,  p.  208. 
-  Ibid.,  December  5,  1677. 


(Mumfoia 
in  ito  Cits  xrf 

The  University  includes  the  following  : 

Columbia  College,  founded  in  1754,  and  Barnard  College,  founded  in 
1889,  offering  to  men  and  women,  respectively,  programs  of  study  which  may 
be  begun  either  in  September  or  February  and  which  lead  normally  in  from  three 
to  four  years  to  the  degrees  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  in  the  former  and  of  Bachelor 
of  Arts  and  Bachelor  of  Science  in  the  latter.  The  program  of  study  in  Columbia 
College  makes  it  possible  for  a  well  qualified  student  to  satisfy  the  requirements 
for  both  the  bachelor's  degree  and  a  professional  degree  in  law,  medicine,  tech- 
nology or  education  in  six,  five  and  a-half,  or  five  years  as  the  case  may  be. 

The  Faculties  of  Political  Science,  Philosophy  and  Pure  Science,  offering 
advanced  programs  of  study  and  investigation  leading  to  the  degrees  of  Master  of 
Arts  and  Doctor  of  Philosophy. 

The  Professional  Schools  of 
Law,  established  in  1858,  offering  courses  of  three  years  leading  to  the  degree  of 

Bachelor  of  Laws  and  of  one  year  leading  to  the  degree  of  Master  of  Laws. 
Medicine.     The  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons,  established  in  1807,  offering 
two  years  courses   leading   to  other   degrees  of  Bachelor  of  Science  and 
four-year  courses  leading  to  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Medicine. 
Mines,  founded  in  1863,  offering  courses  of  three  years  leading  to  degrees  in 
Mining,  Engineering  and  in  Metallurgy,  and  of  one  year  leading   to   the 
degree  of  Master  of  Science. 

Chemistry  and  Engineering,  set  apart  from  School  of  Mines  in  189G.  offering 
three-year  courses  leading  to  degrees  in  Chemistry,  and  in  Civil,  Electrical, 
Mechanical  and  Chemical  Engineering,  and  of  one  year  leading  to  the  degree 
of  Master  of  Science. 

Teachers  College,  founded  in  1888,  offering  in  its  School  of  Education  courses 
in  the  history  and  philosophy  of  education  and  the  theory  and  practice  of 
teaching,  leading  to  appropriate  diplomas  and  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of 
Science  in  Education  ;  and  in  its  School  of  Practical  Arts  founded  in  1912, 
courses  in  household  and  industrial  arts,  fine  arts,  music,  and  physical  train- 
ing leading  to  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Science  in  Practical  Arts.  All  the 
courses  in  Teachers  College  are  open  to  men  and  women.  These  faculties 
offer  courses  leading  to  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  and  Master  of  Science. 
Architecture,  offering  a  program  of  indeterminate  length  leading  to  the  degree 

of  Bachelor  of  Architecture  and  Master  of  Science. 

Journalism,  founded  in  1912,  offering  a  four-year  course  leading  to  the  degree 
of  Bachelor  of  Literature  in  Journalism.  The  work  of  the  first  two  years  is 
given  by  the  Faculty  of  Columbia  College. 

Business,  founded  in  1916,  offering  two  and  three-year  courses  in  business  train- 
ing leading  to  appropriate  degrees. 
Dentistry,  founded  in  1917,  offering  four-year  courses  leading  to   appropriate 

degrees. 

Pharmacy.     The  Xew  York  College  of  Pharmacy,  founded  in  1831,   offering 

courses  of  two  and  three  years  leading  to  appropriate  certificates  and  degrees. 

In  the  Summer  Session  the  University  offers  courses  giving  both  general  and 

professional  training  which  may  be  taken  either  with  or  without  regard  to  an 

academic  degree  or  diploma. 

Through  its  system  of  Extension  Teaching  the  University  offers  many  courses 
of  study  to  persons  unable  othenvise  to  receive  academic  training. 

The  Institute  of  Arts  and  Sciences  provides  lectures,  concerts,  readings  and 
recitals — approximately  two  hundred  and  fifty  in  number — in  a  single  season. 

The  price  of  the  L'niversity  Catalogue  is  twenty-five  cents  postpaid.  Detailed 
information  regarding  the  work  in  any  department  will  be  furnished  without 
charge  upon  application  to  the  Secretary  of  Columbia  University,  New  York, 
N.  Y. 


Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies 

in  Historical  and  Political  Science 


Studies  in  American  Trade  Unionism,  by  members  of  the  Economic 
Seminary  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  have  been  published  as  follows: 
The  Finances  of  American  Trade  Unions.  By  A.  M.  SAKOLSKI.  Series 

XXIV  (1906),  Nos.  3-4.     Paper,  75  cents. 

National   Labor  Federations  in  the  United   States.     By   WILLIAM    KIRK. 

Series  XXIV  (1906),  Nos.  9-10.     Paper,  75  cents. 
Apprenticeship  in  American  Trade   Unions.     By  J.   M.   MOTLEY.     Series 

XXV  (1907),  Nos.  11-12.     Paper,  50  cents. 

Beneficiary  Features  of  American  Trade  Unions.     By  J.  B.  KENNEDY.     Series 

XXVI  (1908),  Nos.  ii-i2.     Paper,  50  cents. 

The  Trade-Union  Label.     By  E.  R.  SPEDDEN.     Series  XXVIII  (1910),  No. 

2.     Paper,  50  cents;  cloth,  75  cents. 
The  Closed  Shop  in  American  Trade  Unions.     By  F.  T.  STOCKTON.     Series 

XXIX  (1911),  No.  3.     Paper,  $1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 

The  Standard  Rate  in  American  Trade  Unions.     By  D.  A.  McCABE.     Series 

XXX  (1912),  No.  2.     Paper,  $1.25;  cloth,  $1.50. 

Admission  to  American  Trade  Unions.     By  F.  E.  WOLFE.     Series  XXX 

(1912),  No.  3.     Paper,  $1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 
The  Government  of  American  Trade  Unions.     By  T.  W.  GLOCKER.     Series 

XXXI  (1913),  No.  2.     Paper,  $1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 

Jurisdiction  in  American  Building  Trades  Unions.     By  N.   R.  WHITNEY. 

Series  XXXII  (1914),  No.  i.     Paper,  $1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 
The  Helper  and  American  Trade  Unions.     By  JOHN  H.  ASHWORTH.     Series 

XXXIII  (1915),  No.  3.     Paper,  75  cents;  cloth,  $1.00. 

The  Boycott  in  American  Trade  Unions.     By  LEO  WOLMAN.     Series  XXXIV 

(1916),  No.  i.     Paper,  $1.00;  cloth,  $1.25. 
The  Control  of  Strikes  in  American  Trade  Unions.     By  G.  M.  JANES.     Series 

XXXIV  (1916),  No.  3.     Paper,  75  cents;  cloth,  $1.00. 

The  Organizability  of  Labor.     By  W.  O.  WEYFORTH,  JR.     Series  XXXV 

(1917),  No.  2.     Paper,  $1.50;  cloth,  $1.75. 
Bibliography  of  American  Trade-Union  Publications.     Edited  by  GEORGE  E. 

BARNETT.     Second  edition.     The  Johns  Hopkins  Press,  1907.     Paper, 

75  cents. 

Subscriptions  and  orders  for  single  monographs  should  be  sent  to 

THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS,  Baltimore,  Md. 


Columbia  University  Press  Publications 

OUR  CHIEF  MAGISTRATE  AND  HIS  POWERS.  By  WILLIAM  HOWARD 
TAFT,  Twenty  seventh  President  of  the  United  States.  Pp.  vii  -f-  165. 

CONSTITUTIONAL    GOVERNMENT    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES.       By 

WOODROW  WILSON,  LL.D.,  President  of  the  United  States.     Pp.  vii -)- 236. 

THE  BUSINESS  OF  CONGRESS.  By  SAMUEL  W.  MC€ALL,  Governor  of 
Massachusetts.  Pp.  vii  -(-215. 

THE  COST  OF  OUR  NATIONAL  GOVERNMENT.  By  HENRY  JONES  FORD, 
Professor  of  Politics  in  Princeton  University.  Pp.  xv  -(-  147. 

POLITICAL    PROBLEMS   OF  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT.     By    ALBERT 

SHAW,  LL.-U.,  Editor  of  the  Review  of  Rc-vieius.     Pp.  vii-)-  268. 

THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  POLITICS  FROM  THE  VIEWPOINT  OF  THE 
AMERICAN  CITIZEN.  By  JEREMIAH  \V.  JENKS,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Gov- 
ernment and  Public  Administration  in  New  York  University.  Pp.  xviii  -)-  187. 

WORLD  ORGANIZATION  AS  AFFECTED  BY  THE  NATURE  OF  THE 
MODERN  STATE.  By  DAVID  JAYNE  HILL,  LL.D.,  late  American  Ambas- 
sador to  Germany.  Pp.  ix  -+-214. 

THE  NATURE  AND  SOURCES  OF  THE  LAW.  By  JOHN  CHIPMAN  GRAY, 
LL.D.,  late  Royall  Professor  of  Law  in  Harvard  University.  Pp.  xii  +332- 

THE  GENIUS  OF  THE  COMMON  LAW.  By  the  Right  Honorable  Sir  FRED- 
ERICK POLLOCK,  Bart.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.  Pp.  vii-f- 141. 

THOMAS  JEFFERSON.  His  Permanent  Influence  on  American  Institutions. 
By  JOHN  SHARP  WILLIAMS,  U.  S.  Senator  from  Mississippi.  Pp.  ix  -(-  330. 

THE  MECHANICS  OF  LAW  MAKING.  By  COURTENAY  ILBERT,  G.  C.  B., 
Clerk  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Pp.  viii  -(-  209. 

LAW  AND  ITS  ADMINISTRATION.  By  HARLAN  F.  STONE,  LL.D.,  Dean  of 
the  School  of  Law,  Columbia  University.  Pp.  vii  -j-  232. 

Uniformly  bound,  12mo,  cloth.     Each,  $1.50  net. 


THE  LAW  AND  THE  PRACTICE  OF  MUNICIPAL  HOME  RULE.  By  HOW- 
ARD LKE  McBAlN,  Associate  Professor  of  Municipal  Science  and  Administration 
in  Columbia  University.  8vo,  cloth,  pp.  xviii  -}-  724.  Price,  $5.00  net. 

STUDIES  IN  SOUTHERN  HISTORY  AND  POLITICS.  Inscribed  to  William 
Archibald  Dunning,  Lieber  Professor  of  History  and  Political  Philosophy  in 
Columbia  University,  by  his  former  pupils,  the  authors.  A  collection  of  fifteen 
essays.  8vo,  cloth,  pp.  viii  -(-  294.  $2.50  net. 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  QUARTERLY.  A  magazine  issued  by  authority  of 
the  Trustees  of  the  University,  which  aims  to  represent  that  wide  variety  of  lit- 
erary, philosophic,  and  scientific  activity  which  focuses  at  Columbia  and  through 
which  the  University  contributes  to  the  thought  and  work  of  the  world.  The 
Quarterly  is  issued  in  December,  March,  June  and  September.  Annual  sub- 
scription, one  dollar  ;  single  numbers,  thirty  cents  400  pages  per  volume. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LEMGKE  &  BUEOHNER,  Agents 
30-32  West  Twenty-Seventh  Street,  New  York  City 


Longmans,  Green,  &  Co.'s  Publications 


THE  ECONOMIC  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.     By 

ERNEST  LUDLOW  BOGART,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  Economics  in 
the  University  of  Illinois.  With  26  Maps  and  95  Illustrations.  Crown 
8vo.,  £1.75,  net. 

READINGS  IN  THE  ECONOMIC  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES.  By  E.  L.  BOGART,  Ph.D.,  and  C.  M.  THOMPSON,  Ph.D., 
of  the  University  of  Illinois.  8vo.  $2.80. 

A  source  book  which  collects  in  one  volume  contemporary  material 
illustrating  the  most  important  economic  developments  in  the  country's 
history.  The  material  is  arranged  as  follows :  Eight  chapters  deal  with 
the  United  States  before  1808;  nine  with  the  period  of  1808-1860;  and 
six  with  the  period  since  1860. 

HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND  FROM  THE  DEFEAT  OF  THE 
ARMADA  TO  THE  DEATH  OF  ELIZABETH.  With  an  Ac- 
count of  English  Institutions  During  the  Later  Sixteenth  and  Early  Seven- 
teenth Centuries.  By  EDWARD  P.  CHEYNEY,  A.M.,  LL.D.,  Professor 
of  European  History  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  In  2  volumes. 
8vo.  Vol.  I.  £3.50,  net. 

"  It  is  a  singular  instance  of  the  skill  with  which  the  mass  of  detail  now  at  the  disposal 
of  the  historian  can  be  ransacked  and  reproduced  so  as  to  give,  with  no  hint  of  sensational- 
ism, an  actual  living  picture  of  events."  —  The  Times. 

PUBLIC  OPINION  AND  POPULAR  GOVERNMENT.     By  A. 

LAWRENCE  LOWELL,  President  of  Plarvard  University.  8vo.  $2.25,  net. 
(American  Citizen  Series], 

..."  The  book  is  a  distinct  addition  to  the  literature  dealing  with  popular  government. 
— in  some  respects,  indeed,  the  most  valuable  that  has  been  made  by  an  American  author. 
—  The  Dial. 

THE  WHEEL  OF  WEALTH.  Being  a  Reconstruction  of  the  Science 
and  Art  of  Political  Economy  on  the  lines  of  Modern  Evolution.  By 
JOHN  BEATTIE  CROZIER,  LL.D.  Author  of  "  Civilization  and  Progress," 
"  History  of  Intellectual  Development,"  &c.  8vo.  £4.50. 

"  Without  exaggeration  a  great  book.  In  the  march  of  ideas  to  which  political  progress 
eventually  responds,  a  work  of  this  remarkable  character  must  be  certain  of  influence  and 
appreciation." — Pall  Mall  Gazette. 

MUNICIPAL  LIFE  AND  GOVERNMENT  IN  GERMANY.     By 

WILLIAM  HARHUTT  DAWSON,  Author  of  "  The  Evolution  of  Modern 
Germany,"  "Germany  and  the  Germans,"  etc.  Second  Edition.  $2.50, 
net. 

".  .  .  The  volume  rebounds  with  valuable  material  interlocked  with  judgments  based  on 
a  thoroughgoi»g  knowledge  and  appreciation  of  municipal  institutions  in  Germany.'1 — 
Annuals  of  the  American  Academ\  of  Political  and  Social  Science. 


LONGMANS,  GREEN,  &  CO.,  Publishers, 

Fourth  Avenue  and  3Oth  Street,  New  York. 


Longmans,  Green,  &  Co.'s  Publications 


Day — A  History  of  Commerce.  By  CLIVE  DAY,  Ph.D.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Economic  History  in  Yale  University.  With  34  Maps.  639 
pages.  $2.00  net. 

This  book  contains  the  essentials  of  commercial  progress;  and  development  with  special 
attention  to  the  relative  proportion  of  subjects.  During  the  nineteenth  century,  the  appor- 
tionment of  space  to  the  different  countries  has  been  regulated  by  their  respective  commer- 
cial importance.  The  first  two  chapters  on  the  United  States  are  designed  to  serve  both  as 
a  summary  of  colonial  history  and  as  an  introduction  to  the  commercial  development  of  the 
national  period.  Later  chapters  aim  to  include  the  essentials  of  our  commercial  progress. 

Follett— The  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. By  M.  P.  FOLLETT.  With  an  Introduction  by  ALBERT  B. 
HART,  LL.D.  Crown  8vo,  with  Appendices  and  Index.  $1.75  net. 

"In  few  recent  works  belonging  to  the  field  of  politics  and  history  do  we  find  so  much  evi- 
dence of  the  conditions  which  are  essential  to  the  making  of  a  good  book — a  well-chosen 
theme,  grasp  of  subject,  mastery  of  material,  patient,  long-continued,  wisely  directed  labor, 
good  sense  and  good  taste  .  .  .  the  wonder  is  that  in  a  region  so  new  the  author  should  have 
succeeded  in  exploring  so  far  and  so  well.  The  work  has  placed  every  student  of  politics 
and  political  history  under  heavy  obligations." — Political  Science  Quarterly. 

Cadbury— Experiments  in  Industrial  Organization. 

By  EDWARD  CADBURY,  part  author  of  "Women's  Work  and  Wages" 
and  "  Sweating."  With  a  Preface  by  W.  J.  ASHLEY,  M.  A.,  Professor 
of  Commerce  in  the  University  of  Birmingham.  Crown  8vo.  $1.60  net 

Ripley — Railroads.  In  two  volumes.  By  WILLIAM  Z. 
RIPLEY,  Ph.D.,  Nathaniel  Ropes  Professor  of  Economics  in  Harvard 
University,  author  of  "Railway  Problems,"  etc.  Vol.  I,  Rates  and  Regu- 
lation, with  41  maps  and  Diagrams.  8vo,  pp.  xviii  -(-  659,  $3.00  net 
Vol.  II,  Finance  and  organization,  with  29  maps  and  diagrams  in  the  text. 
8vo,  pp.  xx-|-638,  $3.00  net. 

Rowe — United  States  and  Porto  Rico.  With  Special  Refer- 
ence to  the  Problems  arising  out  of  our  contact  with  the  Spanish  American 
Civilization.  By  LEO  S.  ROWE,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Political  Science  in 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Chairman  of  the  Porto  Rican  Commission 
(1901-1902),  etc.  Crown  Svo.  280  pages.  $1.30  net. 

Willoughby— Political  Theories  of  the  Ancient  World. 

By  WESTKL  W.  WILLOUGHBY,  Ph.D.,  Associate  Professor  of  Political 
Science  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  Author  of  "The  Nature  of 
the  State,"  "Social  Justice,"  "The  Rights  and  Duties  of  American  Citi- 
zenship," etc.  Crown,  Svo.  308  pages.  $2.00  net. 


LONGMANS,  GREEN,  &  CO.,  Publishers, 

Fourth.  Avenue  and  3Oth  Street,  New  York. 


Readings  on  the  Relation  of  Government 
to  Property  and  Industry 

Edited  by  SAMUEL  P.  ORTH,  Cornell  University.     664  pages,  $2.25 

This  is  a  timely  book  on  a  topic  of  the  most  vital  concern  to-day. 
Many  of  the  important  writings  on  the  subject  are  frequently  referred  to, 
yet  heretofore  the  student  has  been  compelled  to  search  the  files  of  the 
law  reviews,  the  publications  of  the  learned  societies,  and  government 
documents. 

Selected  Readings  in  Rural  Economics 

Compiled  by  THOMAS  NIXON  CARVER,  Harvard  University.    947  pages,  $2.80 

Excellent  material  ordinarily  difficult  of  access,  and  representing  the 
authorship  of  many  leading  authorities  on  the  subject.  Agricultural  His- 
tory, Land  Tenure,  The  Farmer's  Business,  Agrarian  Movements,  Rural 
Organization  and  Marketing,  and  Agricultural  Policy  are  among  the  sub- 
jects discussed  at  length. 

Trusts,  Pools  and  Corporations 

Edited  by  WILLIAM  Z.  RIPLEY,  Harvard  University.     872  pages,  $2.75 

About  400  pages  of  new  material  have  been  added  to  the  Revised 
Edition  of  this  well-known  book.  Among  the  recent  cases  discussed  are 
the  National  Cash  Register  Case;  the  Steel  Corporation  Case  of  June, 
1915;  and  the  Keystone  Watch  Decision. 

The  Hague  Arbitration  Cases 

By  GEORGE  GRAFTON  WILSON,  Harvard  University.      525  pages,  $3.50 

The  first  book  to  supply  the  essential  material,  hitherto  so  frequently 
in  demand,  yet  difficult  to  find,  on  the  work  of  the  Hague  Court  since  its 
establishment  in  1899. 

The  Growth  of  American  State  Constitutions 

By  JAMES   QUAYLE  DEALEY,  Brown  University.     308  pages,  $1.40 


GINN  AND  COMPANY 

Boston  New  Yorh  CKicago  London 


Studies  in  History,  Economics  and  Public  Law 

edited  by 

Faculty  of  Political  Science  of  Columbia  University 


VOLUME  I,  1891-92.    2nd  Ed.,  1897.    396  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $2.50. 

1.  The  Divorce  Problem.    A  Study  In  Statistics. 

By  WALTER  F.  WILLCOX,  Ph.D.     Price,  75  cents. 

8.  The  History  of  Tariff  Administration  In  the  United  States,  from  Colonial 
Times  to  the  McKlnley  Administrative  Bill. 

By  JOHN  DEAN  Goss,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 

3.  History  of  Municipal  Land  Ownership  on  Manhattan  Island. 

By  GEORGE  ASHTON  BLACK,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.oo. 

4.  Financial  History  of  Massachusetts. 

By  CHARLBS  H.  J.  DOUGI.AS,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

VOLUME  II,  1892-93.    (See  note  on  last  page.) 

1.  [5]  The  Economics  of  the  Russian  Village. 

By  ISAAC  A.  HOURWICH,  Ph.D.     (Out  of  print). 

ft.  [6]  Bankruptcy.    A  Study  in  Comparative  Legislation. 

By  SAMUEL  W.  DUNSCOMB,  Jr.,  Ph.D.    (Not  sold  separately.) 

3.  [7j  Special  Assessments  ;  A  Study  in  Municipal  Finance. 

By  VICTOR  ROSBWATBR,  Ph.D.    Second  Edition,  1898.     Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  III,  1893.    465  pp.    (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1.  [S]  *Hlstory  of  Elections  In  American  Colonies. 

By  CORTLAND  F.  BISHOP,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00,  cloth. 
3.  [9]  The  Commercial  Policy  of  England  toward  the  American  Colonies. 

By  GEORGE  L.  BEER,  A.M.     (Not  sold  separately.) 

VOLUME  IV,  1893-94.    438pp.    (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1.  [1O1  Financial  History  of  Virginia.  By  WILLIAM  Z.  RIPLEY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

2.  rilJ*The  Inheritance  Tax.  By  MAX  WEST,  Ph.D.    Second  Edition,  1908.    Price,  $2.00. 

3.  [13]  History  of  Taxation  in  Vermont. 

By  FREDERICK  A.  WOOD,  Ph.D.    (Not  sold  separately. ) 

VOLUME  V,  1895-96.    498  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [13]  Double  Taxation  in  the  United  States. 

By  FRANCIS  WALKER,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.00. 

2.  [14]  The  Separation  of  Governmental  Powers. 

By  WILLIAM  BONDY,  LL.B.,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 

3.  [15]  Municipal  Government  In  Michigan  and  Ohio. 

By  DELOS  F.  WILCOX.  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 

VOLUME  VI,  1896.    601  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50 ;  Paper  covers,  $4.00. 

[16]  History  of  Proprietary  Government  in  Pennsylvania. 

By  WILLIAM  ROBERT  SHEPHERD,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  VII,  1896.    512  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [17]  History  of  the  Transition  from  Provincial  to  Common-wealth  Gov- 
ernment in  Massachusetts.  By  HARRY  A.  GUSHING,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ja.co. 
3 .  [  18]*Speculation  on  the  Stock  and  Produce  Exchan  ges  of  the  United  States 

By  HENRY  GROSBY  EMERY,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  VIII,  1896-98.    551  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [19]  The  Struggle  between  President  Johnson  and  Congress  over  Recon- 
struction. By  GHARLES  ERNEST  GHADSEY,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.00. 

8.  [3O]  Recent  Centralizing  Tendencies  In  State  Educational  Administra- 
tion. By  WILLIAM  CLARENCE  WEBSTER,  Ph.D.  Price,  75  cents. 

3.  [31]  The  Abolition  of  Privateering  and  the  Declaration  of  Paris. 

By  FRANCIS  R.  STARK,  LL.B.,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 

4.  [23]  Public  Administration  in  Massachusetts.    The  Relation  of  Central 

to  Local  Activity.  By  ROBERT  HARVEY  WRITTEN,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 

VOLUME  IX,  1897-98.    617  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [83]  *Engllsh  Local  Government  of  To-day.  A  Study  of  the  Relations  of 
Central  and  Local  Government.  By  MILO  ROY  MALTBIE,  Ph.D.  Price,  $2.00. 

3.  [34]  German  Wage  Theories.    A  History  of  their  Development. 

By  JAMKS  W,  GKOOK,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 
3.  [33]  The  Centralization  of  Administration  In  Now  York  State. 

By  JOHN  ARCHIBALD  FAIKLIE,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 


VOLUME  X,  1898-99.    409  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [86]  Sympathetic  Strikes  and  Sympathetic  Lockouts. 

By  FRKU  S.  HALL,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

2.  [27]  *Khode  Island  and  the  Formation  of  Ihe  Union. 

By  FRANK  GREBNB  BATES,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50 

3.  [28].  Centralized  Administration  of  Liquor  Laws  In  the  American  Com-i 

moil  wealths.  By  CLEMENT  MOORE  LAC  BY  SITES,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.oo. 

VOLUME  XI,  1899.    495  pp.    Price,  cloth,  4.00;  paper  covers,  $3.50. 

[89]  The  Growth  Of  Cities.  By  ADNA  FBRRIN  WEPBR  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XII,  1899-1900.    586  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [3O]  History  and  Functions  of  Central  Labor  Unions. 

By  WILLIAM  MAXWELL  BURKE,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 

2.  [81.]  Colonial  Immigration  Laws. 

By  EDWARD  EMERSON  PROPER,  A.M.     Price,  75  cents. 
8.  [32]  History  of  Military  Pension  Legislation  In  the  United  States. 

By  WILLIAM  HKNRY  GLASSON,  Ph.D.     Price,  fi.oo. 

4.  [33]  History  of  the  Theory  of  Sovereignty  since  Rousseau. 

By  CHARLES  t,.  MBKKIAM,  Jr.,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XIII,  1901.    570  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [34]  The  Legal  Property  Relations  of  Married  Parties. 

By  ISIDOR  LOBB,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

2.  [35]  Political  Natlvlsm  In  New  York  State. 

By  Louis  Dow  Scisco,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

3.  [38]  The  Reconstruction  of  Georgia.        By  EDWIN  C.  WOOLLEY,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

VOLUME  XIV,  1901-1902.    576  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4-00. 

1.  [37]  Loyallsm  In  New  York  during  the  American  Revolution. 

By  ALEXANDER  CLARENCE  FLICK,  Ph.D.     Price,  fe.oo. 

2.  [38]  The  Economic  Theory  of  Risk  and  Insurance. 

By  ALLAN  H.  WILLBTT,  Ph.D.     Price,  *i.5<j. 

3.  [39]  The  Eastern  Question:  A  Study  in  Diplomacy. 

By  STEPHEN  P.  H.  DUGGAN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  XV,  1902.    427  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50;  Paper  covers,  $3.00. 

[4O]  Crime  In  Its  Relation  to  Social  Progress.       By  ARTHUR  CLEVELAND  HALL,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XVI,  1902-1903.    547  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [41]  The  Past  and  Present  of  Commerce  in  Japan. 

By  VETARO  KINOSITA,  Ph.D.    Price,  *i. 50. 

2.  [42]  The  Employment  of  Women  in  the  Clothing  Trade. 

By  MABEL  HURD  WILLBT,  Ph.D.     Price,  Jr. 50. 

3.  [43]  The  Centralization  of  Administration  In  Ohio. 

By  SAMUEL  P.  ORTH,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XVII,  1903.    635  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [44]  "Centralizing  Tendencies  In  the  Administration  of  Indiana. 

By  WILLIAM  A.  RAWLBS,  Ph.D.     Price,  fa. 50. 

2.  [45]  Principles  of  Justice  In  Taxation.     By  STEPHEN  F.  WESTON,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XVIII,  1903.    753  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [46]  The  Administration  of  Iowa.       By  HAROLD  MARTIN  BOWMAN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  [47]  Turgot  e  nd  the  Six  Edicts.  By  ROBERT  P.  SHEPHERD,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

3.  [48]  Hanover  and  Prussia,  1795-18O3.        By  GUY  STANTON  FORD,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XIX,  1903-1905.    588  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [49]  Joslah  Tucker,  Economist.  By  WALTER  ERNEST  CLARK   PhD.     Price, $r. 50. 

2.  [6Oj  History  and  Criticism  of  the  Labor  Theory  of  Value  In  Encllsh  Polit- 

ical Economy.  By  ALUHRT  C.  WHITAKER,  Ph.L).     Price,  $1.50. 

3.  [51]  Trade  Unions  and  the  Law  In  New  York. 

iiy  GBOHGK  GORHAM  GROAT,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 

VOLUME  XX..  1904.    514  pp.    Price,  cloth.  $3.50. 

1.  [58]  The  Office  of  the  Justice  of  the  Pee*co  In  England. 

By  CHARLES  AUSTIJJ  HEARD,  Ph.D.     Price,  f  1.50. 

2.  [53]  A  History  of  Military  Government  In  Newly  Acquired  Territory  of 

the  United  States.  By  DAVID  V.  THOMAS,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XXI,  1904.    746  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [54]  Treaties,  their  Making  and  Enforcement. 

By  SAMUKL  B.  CRANDALL,  Ph.D.     Price   $1.50. 

2.  [55]  The  Sociology  of  a  New  York  City  Hlock. 

l!y  THOMAS  JKSSK  JONES,  Ph.D.     Price,  f  i.oo. 

3.  [5G]  Pre-Malthusian  Doctrines  of  Popu  atloii 

l»y  CHAKLKS  E.  STANGELAND,  Ph.D.     Price,  £1.50. 


VOLUME  XLVII,  1912.    544  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [118]  The  Politics  of  Michigan,  1865-1878, 

BY  HARRIETTS  M.  DILLA,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 
9.  [119]  *The  United  States  Beet  Sugar  Industry  and  the  Tariff. 

BY  ROT  G.  BLAKKY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $t.oo. 

VOLUME  XL VIII,  1912.    493  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [18O]  Isidor  of  Seville.  BY  ERNEST  BRBHAUT,  Ph.  D.    Price,  Ja.oo. 

9,  [181]  Progress  and  Uniformityin  Child-Labor  "Legislation. 

By  WILLIAM  FIELDING  OGBURN,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.75. 

VOLUME  XLIX,  1912.    592  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [183]  British  Radicalism  1791-1797.  BY  WALTER  PHBLPS  HALL.    Price,  fa.oo. 

S.  [183]  A  Comparative  Study  of  the  Law  of  Corporations. 

BY  ARTHUR  K.  KUHN,  Ph.D.     Price,  fi.$o. 
3.  [184]  *The  Negro  at  Work  In  New  York  City. 

BY  GEORGE  £.  HAYNBS.  Ph.D.    Price, $1.25. 

VOLUME  L,  1911.    481  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [1851  The  Spirit  of  Chinese  Philanthropy.      !Bv  YAI  YUE  Tsu,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

8.  [18«]  *The  Alien  in  China.  BY  Vi.  KYUIH  WELLINGTON  Koo,  Ph.D.    Price,$2.5o. 

VOLUME  LI,  1912.    4to.  Atlas.    Price:  cloth,  $1.50;  paper  covers,  $1.00. 

1.  [187]  The  Sale  of  Liquor  in  the  South. 

BY  LEONARD  S.  BLAKEY,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LII,  1912.    489  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [138]  'Provincial  and  Local  Taxation  in  Canada. 

BY  SOLOMON  YINBBERS,  Ph.D.    Price,  JSi.jo. 

9.  [189]  *The  Distribution  of  Income. 

By  FRANK  HATCH  STREIOHTOFP,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

8.  [ISO]  *The  Finances  of  Vermont.  By  FREDERICK  A.  WOOD,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  LILT,  1913.    789  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper,  $4.00. 

[131]  The  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction  in  Florida.       JBy  W.  W.  DAVIS,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LIV,  1913.    604  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  E138]    *  Privileges  and  Immunities  of  Citizens  of  the  United  States. 

By  ARNOLD  JOHNSON  LIEN,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

9.  [133]    The  Supreme  Court  and  Unconstitutional  Legislation. 

By  BLAINE  FREE  MOORE,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 

8.  [134]  *Indian  Slavery  in  Colonial  Times  within  the  Present  Limits  of  the 

United  States.  By  ALMON  WHEELER  LAUBHR,  Ph.D.     Price,  $3.00. 

VOLUME  LV,  1913.    665  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [185]    *A  Political  History  of  the  State  of  New  York. 

By  HOMER  A.  STBBBINS,  Ph.D.     Price,  $4*00. 

9.  [186]    The  Early  Persecutions  of  the  Christians. 

By  LEON H.  CANFIBLD,  Ph.D.     Price,    $1.50. 

VOLUME  LVI,  1913.    406  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [137]  Speculation  on  the  New  York  Stock  Exchange,  19O4-19O7. 

By  ALGERNON  ASHBURNER  OSBORNE.      Price,  $1.50. 

8.  [138]  The  Policy  of  the  United  States  towards  Industrial  Monopoly. 

By  OSWALD  WHITMAN  KNAUTH,  Ph.D.      Price ]  Jz.oo. 

VOLUME  LVII,  1914.    670  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [189]  The  Civil  Service  of  Great  Britain. 

By  ROBERT  MOSES.  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

9.  [14O]  The  Financial  History  of  New  York  State. 

By  DON  C.  SOWERS.     Price,  (2.50. 

VOLUME  I VIII,  1914.    684  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper,  $4.00. 

[141]  Reconstruction  In  North  Carolina. 

By  J.  G.  DE  ROULHAC  HAMILTOM,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LIX,  1914.    625  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [148]  The  Development  of  Modern  Turkey  by  means  of  Its  Press. 

By  AHMED  EMIN,  Ph.D.     Price,  f  i.oo. 
9.  [143]  The  System  of  Taxation  In  China,  1614-1911. 

13y  SHAO-KWAN  CHEN,  Ph.  D.     Price,  $1.00. 

3.  [144]  The  Currency  Problem  In  China.  By  WEN  PIN  WEI,  Ph.-D.    Price,  $1.25. 

4.  [  145]  "Jewish  Immigration  to  the  United  States. 

By  SAMUEL  JOSBPH,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


JAN172W8 


50m-5,'64(E5474s8)9482 


3   1205  00094  8834 


A     001  077  479     2 


